Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Well done on your victory!  👏   You must have a magic touch, it's extremely rare that the PPCs accept an appeal.
    • Court hearing today. WON on all counts of claim. The win though is not the interesting bit, but the ‘why’ is really useful. We were allocated 90 minutes but it took two hours by telephone . The defense were represented but I failed to note whether by a solicitor, barrister or other advocate.   As soon as the judge finished the introductions and before he had time to pass the time over to me to explain my case, the defense interrupted and asked the claim be struck out. He then spent the next 40 minutes discussing with the judge that I had failed to properly serve my bundle upon which I intended to rely. The judge asked me to explain and I said I had served the bundle to them and the court 3 days before the deadline, by signed for post with a tracking number to the address named in the summons being the Royal Mail Head Office in London. I said it was a bit rich that they were making this request when they had failed to serve me and the court with their bundle within the deadline and that I had only just received it. They quoted a certain principle of law (which I failed to write down) which explained that service of documents must be made to the address which either party may request service to be made. They claimed that six months earlier when they lodged their defense to my summons, the covering letter had been sent from their Sheffield office and it constituted the address for future service of documents. I of course had no idea of such a requirement and said that a simple letter heading on a piece of correspondence was not the same as a formal sentence in a letter requesting such future service. It gave the judge some concern but he decided to park the issue and allow the hearing to continue.   I was able to explain my case for the £50 compensation for the lost parcel using the evidence from the defense bundle referencing the Overseas Post Scheme. It was all straight forward. I explained the facts and let them speak for themselves. I then moved on to the delayed Special Delivery items. This is where the fun began because I had to argue against their terms and conditions. I used the defense bundle referencing the UK Post Scheme. I quoted from various clauses which explained the rules relating to claims. That ALL delay claims must be made within 3 months, then that Special Delivery was actually 14 days so not 3 months after all, then another clause which confirmed the deadline was 3 months for all delay claims. I quoted further that these were “common terms” and that some services (Special Delivery was one) had additional terms which were called “specific terms”. Another clause stated that where a conflict arises between common and specific terms, then specific terms took priority. So I turned to the Special Delivery section to quote the specific terms as these would have priority. There was only one term that referenced claims. It simply said If we do not succeed in attempting to deliver by this time (being the next day) we will refund your postage. I used this single phrase to take priority over the 3 months  or 14 day deadline mentioned in the common terms. I discussed how the various clauses conflicted with themselves as if the clauses themselves did not know what the deadlines were and how ambiguous and confusing it was.   The time was then past to the defense and he started to argue there was no contract nor liability in tort (a substantial portion of their written defense document and bundle discussed this argument). It made me smile because I was ready for that. The judge though was ahead of the game and (especially because 40 minutes had been wasted at the beginning) he did not want to hear of it. After about one minute, he stopped the defense by saying exactly what I was preparing to say. Simply that I was not suing under contract or tort but under the conditions of the various postal schemes for which they were liable. He asked the defense to answer my claims. The defense then prevaricated trying to argue the clause that distinctly mentioned the 14 day time limit within which to make a claim for delay (which of course it did) ( as an aside, most people might accept that deadline and not bother to pursue a claim). He had nothing to add about the lost parcel.   Time had run out, we had no questioning and the judge said he was summing up. He was quite happy I had served my documents sufficiently well and took the view that the defense had fallen foul of the court order so he was cancelling out the question about valid service. He had no difficulty in accepting the claim that the lost parcel was valid and awarded me the £50 compensation. He then spoke at longer length about the delay claims and the conflict in the clauses. (at this point I had no idea which way this bit would go). Then, he spoke of how a business such as Royal Mail should not be accepting clauses in their contracts which were clearly inconsistant. (that’s when I started to relax), (and then the best takeaway of the hearing), He said that common law provides in the event of a standard contract if there is any ambiguity, the interpretation should be judged against the person drafting the contract. He called it Contra Proferendem. (I had no idea of that concept but had effectively explained it anyway). I was awarded the whole claim plus costs. The defense asked for permission to appeal which was refused.    Remember the phrase “Contra Proferendem” . I shall be looking more into it. I am sure it will come in handy against any institution that have drafted contracts that cannot be individually negotiated. And will certainly be useful for a long while yet against Royal Mail et al.
    • The White House highlights the upcoming offer of free trips in the US by the ride-hailing firms. View the full article
    • Original loan was £5000 unsecured over 5 years, 28 payments remaining, he wanted to extend it back up to 5 year.........the bank offered him £6700 to clear his credit card and the bank loan, £135 per month from the original figure of £121    One debt of two years old and one debt of 15 months        
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • Ebay Packlink and Hermes - destroyed item as it was "damaged". https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430396-ebay-packlink-and-hermes-destroyed-item-as-it-was-damaged/&do=findComment&comment=5087347
      • 33 replies
    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
  • Recommended Topics

  • Recommended Topics

PE ANPR PCN - overstay - appeal failed - Wigmore Shopping Centre, Luton, LU2 9TA


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 213 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hello.

Recently I parked in a private car park attached to a parade of shops/restaurants in Wigmore, Luton, operated by Private Eye.

It had signs saying about 2 hours maximum stay. Stupidly, I thought this was to deter people from parking there as there are offices close by, or to deter people from shopping for too long (big Asda over the road).

 

I had a reservation at a restaurant on site. I parked for 2 hours 14 minutes.

 

When I appealed I attached all my restaurant orders.

I was with my little girl and a friend.

We actually finished up at 2 hours, but by the time I had taken her to the toilet and got her in the car and then drove out it was 14 minutes over.

 

I thought with this evidence, the fact that I was at the restaurant, would mean I was ok.

Who knew restaurants had time limits????

This was at lunchtime also.

 

I just don't know what to do next.

I feel it is really unfair.

I was supporting a local business.

It was 14 minutes.

 

If I pay within 14 days it is £60, if not £100.

But they have completely shut me down.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

please complete the relevant  section of post 1 here

 

 

first thing to remember it is nothing to do with the restaurant.

they didn't nor do employ PE to issue speculative invoices and don't owe the land anyway.

 

shame you appealed as you've now removed your protection under POFA and shot yourself in the foot as they now know you were the driver.

 

there is a grace period of 10min, there is no maximum 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, don't feel you're stumped because PE refused your appeal.  That was always going to happen.  PE and similar companies never, ever accept appeals - ever.

 

In your appeal did you admit to being the driver?

 

It would be useful if you give us the exact address of the car park.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't remember if I said I was the driver or not.

Probably not in the exact words, but by saying I was at the restaurant, as that was my appeal I guess I did.

 

 

1 Date of the infringement 08/09/20

 

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 11/09/20
 

[scan up BOTHSIDES as ONE PDF- follow the upload guide]

 

3 Date received 12/09/20
 

4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?] Yes
 

5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Yes. A photo of my car leaving the car park, and a close up of my reg plate, stamped with date and time
 

6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] Yes. I can't access my appeal, but said I was in the restaurant, along with copies of my online orders (due to Covid protocol), and said with a small child can take 10 minutes to get them in the car, walk to car etc.
 

Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up Thank you for your correspondence in relation to the Parking Charge incurred on 08 September 2020 at 14:47, at Wigmore Park District Centre, Luton car park.

 

We are writing to advise you that your recent appeal has been unsuccessful and that you have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure.

 

This site is a maximum stay car park, as per the terms and conditions as detailed on the signage.

Your appeal has been rejected on the basis that the maximum time allowed was exceeded.

 

Please be advised:  There is an independent appeals service (POPLA) which is available to motorists who have had an appeal rejected by a British Parking Association Approved Operator.

 

Contact information and further information can be found enclosed. See also www.popla.co.uk

 

 As a gesture of goodwill, we have extended the discount period for a further 14 days from the date of this correspondence.

 

If you appeal to POPLA and your appeal is unsuccessful you will not be able to pay the discounted amount in settlement of the Parking Charge, you will be liable to pay the full amount.

 

If you have already paid the reduced amount, the Parking Charge will be increased to the full amount and you will be liable to pay this increase.

 

 By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services (www.ombudsman-services.org/) provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal.

 

However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service.

As such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as explained above.

 

A payment can be made by telephoning our offices on 0330 555 4444 or by visiting www.parkingeye.co.uk or by posting a cheque or postal order to ParkingEye Ltd, PO Box 117, Blyth, NE24 9EJ. Yours faithfully, ParkingEye Team

 

7 Who is the parking company? Parking Eye

 

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Wigmore Shopping Centre, Wigmore Park Centre, Luton LU2 9TA

 

For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. POPLA
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • dx100uk changed the title to PE ANPR PCN - overstay - appeal failed - Wigmore Shopping Centre, Luton, LU2 9TA

If you've never been in this position before, it's understandable to think that appealing is a good idea.  You were a genuine customer, you were there with a small child, etc.

 

However, as you can imagine we see a load of cases every week, and the PPCs never accept appeals (from the standard reply I bet they never even read yours).  Even worse, the motorist generally writes something like "I parked in ..." and outs themselves as the driver, whereas previously the PPC only knew who the keeper of the car was, not who was driving.

 

But none of this is fatal!

 

As dx says, there is a minimum ten minutes' grace period.  So the fleecers are after you for overstaying FOUR MINUTES.  An extra four minutes is completely understandable when you have a small child and the necessity of taking personal hygiene very seriously in the times of COVID

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

See what others suggest too, but I would think that now you should do nothing - regarding PE at least.

 

Over the next few months they will send you various letters that are meant to be threatening, and probably get debt collectors to do the same, no doubt pretending the amount has increased to try to frighten you and then maybe offering a discount to attempt to con you.  All hot air from paper tigers that can be safely ignored.

 

However, if they ever send you a formal Letter Before Action it'll be time to reply and give them both barrels.

 

If Wigmore is near to you it would be useful if you could go and get photos of the signage.  Also get on to the council to see if they have planning permission for their signs.  Actions like this begin to build up a case to undermine PE's rubbish.

 

Oh, and it's not a fine, it's just an invoice from a private company, big difference. 

 

 

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

let them play

you get lots of scary letters from various people trying to fleece you into paying, including adding unicorn food tax because you haven't

just read the red bits below for how to deal with those powerless muppets.

 

if you ever get a letter of claim.

comeback here.

 

in the meantime the more threads you read in this forum the better.

 

dx

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

who said you'll by ever paying anything.....

 

your local council webportal should have a planning section.

 

signs, ANPR cameras, and the  poles they are on.

 

dx

 

 

 

 

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you. 

My husband thinks I should just pay. I think we have had enough stress this year (various not just Covid), and I think threatening letters, or anything saying about court might tip him over the edge.

I am on the nervous side of leaving it, but just feels very unfair.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi.

 

Have you read other threads here about Parking Lie as we call them? Loads of people have been threatened and a few have even gone to court but almost no one has paid. Have a look at our Successes thread for people who have beaten them.

 

The threatening letters are just hamster bedding. Would you pay me £100 if I wrote to you? That's about how much power PE have.

 

 

HB

  • Like 1

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they threaten baliffs as an example, do they send them round? If they threaten court, how likely is it to happen? Appreciate could also ask how long is a piece of string, but the thought of going to court or dealing with that is a bit overwhelming.

 

Will take a look at that thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

BAILIFFS can never be involved in anything until you've lost a court case.

 

Stop watching mostly fake tv programmes that have ZERO bearing on a speculative invoice which is not a fine

  • Like 2

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, you can pay £60 that you don't owe to a bunch of conmen and have an easy life.

 

Or you can fight them and yes, you will have to put a certain amount of work in.

 

As a campaigning consumer site we would prefer you did the latter!  But it's up to you.

 

The only effort with the future letters is the opening of them.  They're just standard nonsense of which PE send out hundreds every week, hoping to scare the naive.

 

There are 263 successes on the thread HB posted.  That is a vast underestimate as in all 263 cases there was a specific moment to point to when the PPC was beaten.  In many other cases the PPC just gave up but the thread wasn't included.

 

Reasons why PE's claim is rubbish

   - they don't own this land, if you had really done something you shouldn't have with your car it's the landowner who should pursue you, unless they have a contract with PE allowing to issue court claims which they nearly always haven't

   - PE hardly ever bother with planning permission, making their signs illegal

   - the signs are pants, when you pull in there's nothing stated about having to pay £60 for overstaying and they state "only for shopping on site" (so you can't go to the barber's or have a meal then?!!)

   - it's very unlikely that the original planning permission for the car park stated a limit of two hours, personally I'm allergic to shopping but even I could spend two hours there given the range of shops, the eateries, the barber's, the bookies, the pub, etc.

   - if a grace period of 10 minutes is OK in normal times for an adult, 14 minutes is quite reasonable when you have a small child and the three of you had to deep wash your hands before you left (with that queue for the bathroom too ;-)).

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am up that way tomorrow, so will take photos of the signs and post them here. Struggled to see if they had planning permission. Did loads of searches, but the council website, is not easy to find things.

 

Thank you so much

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, most parking companies tend not to bother with getting planning permission.

One reason is that once they have found a company stupid enough to agree to their plan to prevent a few motorists from parking when they shouldn't, they want to get started straight away.

 

Councils often take several weeks before they come to a decision and if they don't agree to the proposals it may take several more weeks before the Council finally agree and when they do agree, it is usually stipulated that motorists can stay park there for. four hours.

 

So being held up for possibly weeks and then not being able to cut the time allowed to park down to 90 minutes makes it difficult for them to earn the kind of rip off figures they like to achieve. So much easier to avoid asking the Council in the first place.

 

Of course this does mean that they are in breach of their Code of Practice which they need to be able to gain access to your DVLA data and also they have breached your GDPR by getting your data from the DVLA.

But why should they worry when the majority of people pay up anyway.

 

You are dealing with out and out crooks who knowingly break the Law time and time again and people out of fear or a desire for a quiet life pay up despite the fact that no money is owed. The lack of planning permission means that their signs should not be there and without the planning permission no contract can be formed between the motorists and the crooks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So I went and took a photo of the sign today, so my arguments so far are;

 

Getting penalised for 4 minutes over when using the restaurant.

 

The sign talks about shopping. I wasn't shopping.

 

Sign.pdf

Edited by FTMDave
Image pasted to thread now converted to PDF
Link to post
Share on other sites

who knows that and it makes no odds anyway.

 

hope you got clear photos of the others and the small print.

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, JKA_needshelp said:

Struggled to see if they had planning permission. Did loads of searches, but the council website, is not easy to find things.

 

You could e-mail or phone the appropriate council office.  Ask them

   - if PE have PP for the signs, poles & cameras, and

   - if they can show you the original PP for the Wigmore Shopping Centre.  Bet it didn't have a limit of two hours!

 

I've converted your photo to PDF so only registered Caggers can see it, best to keep the fleecers guessing.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

from about post 18.

 

 

 

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good grief dx, is there no end to your encyclopedic knowledge  :yo:

 

Brilliant, so no planning permission then.

 

I see in this case PE threatened court and then ran away.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...