Jump to content

Hotel Car Park (trespass) - Parking Eye PCN

Recommended Posts

Hi All


I have spent the last 3-4 days reading information on CAG, Money Saving Expert and Parking Prankster websites.


I've learnt a fair bit :-)


I hope someone would be so kind as to give me a little bit of additional guidance.


Here are the details from the Notice To Keeper



1 Date of the infringement 16/04/2018

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 20/04/2018


3 Date received 24/04/2018


4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? Yes


5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Yes - ANPR entering and exiting


6 Have you appealed? {y/n?] post up your appeal]No, not yet

Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up n/a


7 Who is the parking company? Parking Eye


8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Cedar Court Hotel, Bradford


For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under.I think it is BPA as the second appeal will eventually go to POPLA




On the Notice To Keeper, under "Parking Charge Information", it says

"On the 16 April 2018 vehicle entered the Cedar Court Hotel, Bradford car park at 10:00 and departed at 17:45 on 16 April.


The signage which is clearly displayed at the entrance to and throughout the car park, states that this is private land and that the car park is managed by ParkingEye Ltd. In addition the signage states that, as a hotel patron only car park, a Parking Charge is applicable if the motorist fails to enter their full, correct vehicle registration into the terminal in reception. The signage also contains further terms and conditions associated with this car park by which those who park in the car park agree to be bound.


By parking without a valid permit, authorising the vehicle to park, in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the signage, the Parking Chanrge is now payable to ParkingEye Ltd (as the Creditor)."


I believe the driver of the vehicle is classed as a trespasser because the car park is a Hotel Patron Only Car Park and therefore prohibitive to anybody who is not a hotel patron. The driver did not use the hotel facilities at all. From reading other threads, it seems this is a trespass issue and therefore no breach of contract can occur.


Also, I do have evidence that shows there is inadequate signage.


Since my first appeal will go directly to Parking Eye which will be rejected immediately, I was just going to put "insufficient signage" as my appeal reason rather than the trespass reason.


Any advice is greatly appreciated.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Spot on.

Don’t identify the driver.


If the driver couldn’t have lawfully parked there and was a trespasser, there could be no contract to be breached.

The land owner could take action against the driver (not the keeper!) for trespass, but PEL can’t (they lack ‘locus standi’).

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead of putting in appeal just yet you could write and ask them for clarification of their claim

[i wouldn't mention their dodgy signage yet-you are on a fact finding mission].


Ask them , for clarification, to confirm that if the driver parked there with no intention of being a patron of the hotel would that mean that the driver was being treated as a trespasser.


Or if the driver was a patron of the hotel but either failed to enter their registration number at reception or failed to enter their full correct registration number at reception would that mean that they had no valid permit in both cases [despite perhaps staying at the hotel]and would that mean that they were a trespasser too or something else.


The driver would obviously want to know the situation they are in before they submitted their appeal in order to facilitate a quicker resolution to the problem and perhaps saving both parties the necessity of going to PATAS.


By the sound of it you already know not to identify who the driver was by saying "I" instead of" the driver" for example.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

a little more detail please,

for example was your vehicle visiting on any business and what does the signage at the site say exactly?

Their NTK rather damns then but the actual contact might not.


Indeed, trespass is a matter for the landowner but that doesnt stop parking co's continuing to take action even when they know they are wrong because they get the money 94% of the time.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi ericsbrother

Please see the pdf for what the signage says.

To summarise though, at the entrance it says in big letters "HOTEL PATRONS ONLY"

and in smaller letters it says "Hotel guests must register at reception."


On the sign inside the car park it says in big letters:

"Patron Only Car Park"

"For the use of Cedar Court Hotel customers only"


I have included the small print (terms and conditions) right at the bottom of page 2 of the pdf which can be read from a computer if you zoom in.


The reason the car was there was because the driver met up with a colleague from work and they were going to go in one car to Liverpool on work related business. The driver ended up as a passenger in the other car.


The driver did not see or notice the signs otherwise would not have parked there. The colleague did not see the signs either and is concerned that he may also get a parking charge notice.


Thank you for your help.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi lookinforinfo

I'm not sure I want to contact Parking Eye for clarification. I think consumer law says something like, if a notice can be interpreted in multiple ways, then it should be interpreted in the manner most beneficial to the consumer. So the driver intends to go with that.


Also, I'm not sure I know what PATAS is. I thought the appeals went to POPLA.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

koko_loco my apologies fro stating PATAS when it should have been, as you correctly pointed out, POPLA.


That being said I still think my suggestion is worthwhile.

If you ignore their stupid notices you will have to endure several months of threats from PE, their unregulated debt collectors and their solicitors.


If they do not issue Court papers after that, they still have up to six years from the date your car entered that car park to do so.

Far better then to get them to confirm their position early on to the options you gave them


without giving anything away on your part. Anything that admits it was trespass straight away gives you the option of threatening them with a breach of the DPA which may stop them in their tracks.


If the other keeper does not hear from them it might be worth checking with DVLA to see what address they have for them.

If not up to date it leaves them open to a back door CCJ.


And it is unlikely that PE would not be pursuing them since they are notoriously greedy and chase every penny they can get.

Edited by honeybee13

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

let us see the sigange before you write anything, that will allow you to use the correct arguments and set out your stall should they say no.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi ericsbrother, I have attached the signage in a two page pdf in post 7. Please can you have a look at it.


Hi lookinforinfo, I dont intend to ignore them. I do intend to appeal. I just need to know the best course of action to take so need a little advice.

Edited by koko_loco
incorrect post number

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All

Just bumping this thread because I have to decide whether I'm going to appeal this one or pay parking eye. If I pay, then Friday is the last day I can get the money to them before the £60 goes back up to £100.


Initially, I was confident it was a trespass issue but now... I'm not so sure.


Presumably I would have to prove that the driver did not use hotel.

I have emails and texts sent to and from the driver which detail how the car ended up in the car park.


The driver was supposed to get a hire car to go to Liverpool through the company that they work for.

The hire car didnt get organised in time so the driver had to make alternative arrangements with a colleague who was also travelling to Liverpool but was coming from Newcastle. He met the driver at Cedar Court because it's quite close to the motorway, so it is convenient.


Post 7 in this thread contains the parking signs at the car park if that is of any use and also describes how the driver ended up parking in the hotel car park (due to not seeing the signs).


Any help is appreciated.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Koko __loco whether the charge would be for trespass or breach of contract the advice would still be not to pay.


If it is trespass then there is no contract with PE and so you owe them nothing.


If it is breach of contract PE never get their cases correct-they make so many mistakes that are fatal to their case without even the need to have a strong defence and they don't take everyone to court who falls foul of their moneymaking schemes

[they couldn't else it would block the Court for months just handling their cases and they don't have to as people pay up just with the threat of going to Court].

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

signage not a contract so you cant breach it.

My advice is dont pay them, thye wont beat you in a court claim

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks LoookinForInfo and EricsBrother


So, in my appeal to Parking Eye, should I just say...


"I am appealing because there was insufficient signage?"


and then appeal to POPLA (stating insufficent signage, not a contract and trespass) once I'm provided with a code?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

you dont do anything yet. the signage says hotel patrons only so if you were the registering at reception is not a condition of parking and they cant charge you .


However, if you are not a hotel patron then you are trespassing and that means that this is not offer and acceptance of a contract as you can never fulfil the main requirement to form said contract. you cant agree to brak a contract as the only way of creating one.


That makes the sigange a deterrent rather than a genuine offer of terms and that means the amount they say they want is an unlawful penalty and not a proper consideration.


Also, you wont be appealing , you will be telling them they are wrong and as such you may sue them for breach of the DPA for obtaining your keeper details under false pretences.


I will pen a couple of lines on this when I have more time, probably tomorrow afternoon

Edited by honeybee13

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All

I have received another letter from Parking Eye. This is what it says:


Dear Sir/Madam

We are writing to inform you that the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act in respect of keeper liability have now been satisfied and as 29 days have passed from the date notice of the Parking Charge was given, ParkingEye now has the right to recover any unpaid part of the Parking Charge from you, the registered keeper.


The amount payable is £100.00. This payment is required within 14 days to avoid further action.


If this letter is ignored, further action may include referring to a Credit Reference Agency to confirm the correct address, instruction of solicitiors to secure immediate payment, referral to debt recovery or the issuance of court proceedings, all of which could incur further costs which may be added to the amount owed. To avoid further unnnecesarry costs or action, please pay the outstanding charge amount as stated above or make arrangements for the driver to pay, in accordance with the parking terms and conditions. Further information, including how to pay or appeal can be found on the reverse of this notice.


Please be aware that on 4th November 2015, the Supreme Court dismissed the further appeal lodged in relation to the matter of ParkingEye v Beavis 2015 UKSC 67. The appeal concerned the value of Parkingeye's Parking Charges and the Judgement, granted in ParkingEye's favour, delivers a binding precedent in respect of the value of the Parking Charge.

The Judgment can be found by visiting....blah, blah, blah


The first thing that jumped out at me was they may contact a credit reference agency. I thought that a company/organisation had to have explicit permission from an individual before they could do that.


With the new GDPR rules, would the credit reference agency be allowed to release details about me without my permission?


Also, since this is a trespass issue between the driver and the landowner (and because no contract was formed between the driver and ParkingEye), I was thinking of sending this letter:


"To Whom It May Concern at ParkingEye Ltd


This is NOT a letter of appeal.


I have received several speculative invoices ( parking charge) from yourselves regarding a trespass issue which occurred in the car park of Cedar Court Hotel.


The signage in the car park states that it is a "Patron Only Car Park". The main condition of parking states that "hotel patrons must enter their full, correct vehicle registration details...in reception".


The driver of the vehicle did not use the hotel at all therefore, there was no contract between the driver and ParkingEye.


Since the driver was not a hotel patron, and since the parking conditions only apply to hotel patrons, there is/was no contract.


The driver was a trespasser. The trespass issue is a matter between the driver and the landowner. It, therefore, has absolutely nothing to do with ParkingEye. There is absolutely no need for the driver to make any arrangements whatsoever to pay ParkingEye anything no matter how many speculative invoices are sent out.


Do not contact me again regarding this matter again.


In accordance with the new GDPR regulations, you must now remove ALL data you hold regarding me, as it has been made clear to you that the trespass issue has absolutely nothing to do with you (ParkingEye) at all.


I require confirmation in writing that this has been done. You have 28 days from the date of this letter."


Please let me know your thoughts.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks dx100uk.


Sorry for my ignorance but what does CSL stand for?


Also, I figured because of GDPR, ParkingEye should not be holding any details about me since this is a matter between landowner and driver (not Parking Eye and the keeper).


I just want all my data removed from their records so that I dont ever have to think about this or be bothered by them about this ever again.


If they do keep my data (against my instructions) when it is not necessary then they are breaking GDPR regulations and I can take action against them. But, to do this, I have to first inform them of the situation (trespass) and provide them with instructions relating to my data (ie delete it).


If I dont do this, then they might bring action against me in 5 years time when I might have lost the evidence that I have that shows that this is a trespass matter.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I dont do this, then they might bring action against me in 5 years time when I might have lost the evidence that I have that shows that this is a trespass matter.


So, keep the evidence safe somewhere.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
So, keep the evidence safe somewhere.


Hi BazzaS, you know what it's like...you put something in an ultra safe place and then cant find it!!! :???:


I managed to do this with a bank book. I was having some work done on my house and hid the bank book in an empty box of tights in the back of a cupboard. I turned the house upside down looking for the bank book, couldn't find it. Cancelled it, and got a new one. Found the original purely by accident a couple of years later when I was decluttering! :wink:

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Please fill in your quit date here

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Tweets

  • Our picks

    • A shocking story of domestic and economic abuse compounded by @BarclaysUKHelp ‏ bank complicity – coming soon @A_Gentle_Woman. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/415737-a-shocking-story-of-domestic-and-economic-abuse-compounded-by-barclaysukhelp-%E2%80%8F-bank-complicity-%E2%80%93-coming-soon-a_gentle_woman/
      • 0 replies
    • The FSA has announced large fines against DB UK Bank Limited (trading as DB Mortgages) - DeutscheBank and also against Redstone for their unfair treatment of their customers.
      Please see the links below for summaries and full details from the FSA website.
      It is now completely clear that any arrears charges which exceed actual administrative costs are unfair and therefore unlawful.
      Furthemore, irresponsible lending practices are also unfair and unlawful.
      Additionally there are other unfair practices including unarranged counsellor visits - even if they have been attempted.
      You are entitled to refuse counsellor visits and not incur any charges.
      Any charges for counsellor visits must not seek to make profits. The cost of the visits must be passed on to you at cost price.
      We are hearing stories of people being charged for counsellor visits for which there is no evidence that they were even attempted.
      It is clear that some mortgage lenders are trying to cheat you out of your money.
      You should ascertain how much has been taken from you and claim it back. The chances of winning are better than 90%. It is highly likely that the lender will attempt to avoid court action and offer you back your money.
      However, you should ensure that you receive a proper rate of interest and this means that you should be seeking at least restitutionary damages - which would be much higher than the statutory 8%.
      Furthermore, you should assess whether the paying of demands for unlawful excessive charges has also out you further into arrears and if this has caused you further penalties in terms of extra interest or any other prejudice. This should be claimed as well.
      If excessive unlawful charges have resulted in your credit file being affected, then you should take this into account also when working out exactly what you want by way of remedy from the lender.
      You should consult others on these forums when considering any offer.
      You must not make any complaint through the Ombudsman. your time will be wasted, you will wait up to 2 yrs and there will be a minimal 8% award of interest and no account will be taken of any other damage you have suffered.
      You must make your complaint through the County Court for a rapid and effective remedy.

      Do you have a mortage arears claim to make? Then post your story on the forum here
      • 0 replies
    • 30 Day Right To Reject - Vehicle Casualty Report. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/415585-30-day-right-to-reject-vehicle-casualty-report/
      • 17 replies
    • I am new here but very glad to find my way here and would welcome any input.
      i purchased a brand new campervan conversion from Hillside Leisure (175 miles from our home) on July 26th for £31,000 and, within 48 hours, during a storm, the alarm began to sound incessantly. We could not get it to stop, even after trying everything listed in the manual. We phoned Hillside on Saturday July 28th around 2.00pm. The young man who answered the phone said he would seek the advice of their technician and call us back, which he did. The technician told us that they, Hillside, couldn’t help, but that we should take the van to Nissan (the van is a Nissan) as the fault would lie with one of their components.
      • 42 replies
  • Create New...