Parking eye enforcement

[labman]

Re: Parking eye enforcement

Yes, purely to reiterate - ignore it.

Apologies for the interruptions to your thread earlier - I'm guilty, sorry! lol

[Saffer86]

Re: Parking eye enforcement

Hi,

I received a letter from Parking Eye a few months back, I chose to ignore it, they sent me a reminder, I stupidly freaked as I only had one day to pay before the charge increased. I called them before checking them out online (rookie mistake, I know) and stated that my mom was driving my car and explained she was waiting for me in the car park as it was the closest place for her to get me and that she didnt know anywhere else. The lady on the phone advised me to appeal. I emailed the appeals and explained this to them, surprise surprise my appeal was rejected. I then contacted them again and they agreed to hold the increase so I could submit evidence, yesterday was the last day I could pay the reduced charge, but i stumbled across this site while searching for their number and after reading the threads I now realise I am in the same boat as quite a few people who have delt with them.

Please help as I'm now not sure if I have to pay because I contacted them or not and if anyone knows what would happen next?

Thank you

[alham]

Re: Parking eye enforcement

I am a bit confused now, Am I liable to pay this charge or could it be that eventually I may have to pay a £12 admin fee?

Sorry for causing confusion - ploddertom is absolutely correct, ignore, ignore, ignore. Until these parking companies work out that trying to rip off people is not on and change their charging systems our advice remains: IGNORE.

[alham]

Re: Parking eye enforcement

Hi,

I received a letter from Parking Eye a few months back, I chose to ignore it, they sent me a reminder, I stupidly freaked as I only had one day to pay before the charge increased. I called them before checking them out online (rookie mistake, I know) and stated that my mom was driving my car and explained she was waiting for me in the car park as it was the closest place for her to get me and that she didnt know anywhere else. The lady on the phone advised me to appeal. I emailed the appeals and explained this to them, surprise surprise my appeal was rejected. I then contacted them again and they agreed to hold the increase so I could submit evidence, yesterday was the last day I could pay the reduced charge, but i stumbled across this site while searching for their number and after reading the threads I now realise I am in the same boat as quite a few people who have delt with them.

Please help as I'm now not sure if I have to pay because I contacted them or not and if anyone knows what would happen next?

Thank you

Well, if I was you I'd write them a nice letter, thanking them for holding off increase but, following an advice from some nice people you now realise that their demand is nothing short of illegal. However, in view of the fact that they were very nice you are offering them a cheque for £10 to cover their "expenses".

[Talkinman]

Re: Parking eye enforcement

I just got letter number two explaining that I had missed my chance to donate £60 and should now send them £100, Quite a civil letter. I am still going to ignore them and await the threats.
:ballchain:

[bluebottle]

Re: Parking eye enforcement

Parking Eye are well-known for misrepresenting the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. If they are not careful, Trading Standards could take them to court, as happened to OPC, another PPC (Persistent Prats Club), where they could risk hefty fines or, even, imprisonment. In OPC's case, the company and its directors were fined a total of £30,000 by a magistrates court. Another definition for DCA is "Dim and Clumsy Amateurs".

[labman]

Re: Parking eye enforcement

Parking Eye are well-known for misrepresenting the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. If they are not careful, Trading Standards could take them to court, as happened to OPC, another PPC (Persistent Prats Club), where they could risk hefty fines or, even, imprisonment. In OPC's case, the company and its directors were fined a total of £30,000 by a magistrates court. Another definition for DCA is "Dim and Clumsy Amateurs".

LOL @ PPC's.

They are unlikely to take action against Parking Eye though, and I believe it a little misleading to suggest they might. It's a bit like DCA letters they 'could' take action, but they almost certainly wont.

The OPC case was a totally different kettle of fish:

http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2...-parking-firm/

We're not getting complaints of this sort against Parking Eye.

[Talkinman]

Re: Parking eye enforcement

I thought they had forgotten me but this morning I got letter number 3 from "Parking eye" This makes a big thing of schedule 4 of the Protection of freedom's act. They are demanding £100 within 14 days or further action may be taken such as the instruction of solicitors to secure payment or the issuing of court proceedings, They are insinuating that this will incur extra expense which I would be liable for. I am still going to ignore them under the advice given here and sit it out.

[Curlyben]

Re: Parking eye enforcement

Here's sched. 4 for you: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...dule/4/enacted
Simplified it basically means that as the driver cannot be identified then the keeper of the vehicle can be approached.
This does NOT change how to deal with them at all, file correspondence in the usual manner.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Parking eye enforcement

I thought they had forgotten me but this morning I got letter number 3 from "Parking eye" This makes a big thing of schedule 4 of the Protection of freedom's act. They are demanding £100 within 14 days or further action may be taken such as the instruction of solicitors to secure payment or the issuing of court proceedings, They are insinuating that this will incur extra expense which I would be liable for. I am still going to ignore them under the advice given here and sit it out.

Or, alternatively, they may prefer not to waste more money by trying to sue to enforce a penalty.

The attached file may be interesting.

[labman]

Re: Parking eye enforcement

Or, alternatively, they may prefer not to waste more money by trying to sue to enforce a penalty.

The attached file may be interesting.

#

Re the attached file, I'm not sure I like this bit:

The First-tier Tribunal found that the arrangements constituted a contract between VCS and the motorist, but that the income from payment of the parking charges as set out in the notices was not damages for breach of contract but was paid as a condition of the contract and therefore constituted consideration for a supply of services (Tribunal decision, at [27]).

This would seem to negate the penalty aspect of the argument. So we now have two lots of case law stating there is a contract, and one suggesting the ticket is not a penalty. Am I right to be feeling concerned?

[alham]

Re: Parking eye enforcement

Or, alternatively, they may prefer not to waste more money by trying to sue to enforce a penalty.

The attached file may be interesting.

Beautifully argued points.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Parking eye enforcement

Re the attached file, I'm not sure I like this bit:

The First-tier Tribunal found that the arrangements constituted a contract between VCS and the motorist, but that the income from payment of the parking charges as set out in the notices was not damages for breach of contract but was paid as a condition of the contract and therefore constituted consideration for a supply of services (Tribunal decision, at [27]).

This would seem to negate the penalty aspect of the argument. So we now have two lots of case law stating there is a contract, and one suggesting the ticket is not a penalty. Am I right to be feeling concerned?

Probably.

One should certainly question if the parking company is legally permitted to contract with a motorist and consider how the oddly-named Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 might limit the extent of their claim.

[bluebottle]

Re: Parking eye enforcement

Basically, the PPC has to prove they have authority from the landowner to pursue motorists on their behalf or that the PPC has an interest in the land. However, it still has to be shown, by PPC and landowner, they have suffered actual loss and that any demand is for that loss only, not a penalty or unjustifiable enrichment, which is, basically, what PPCs engage in.

The relevant part of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 that relates to PPCs appears to have been enacted to benefit the parasitic supporters of Big Dave and his Merry Band of Misfits.

[labman]

Re: Parking eye enforcement

Basically, the PPC has to prove they have authority from the landowner to pursue motorists on their behalf or that the PPC has an interest in the land. However, it still has to be shown, by PPC and landowner, they have suffered actual loss and that any demand is for that loss only, not a penalty or unjustifiable enrichment, which is, basically, what PPCs engage in.

OK - I hope everyone here knows I'm dead set against PPC's and will support (and have supported) many people in not paying these speculative invoices. Humour me and let me play Devil's Advocate for a moment.

We have evidence of a contract having been made, along with all its constituent elements. We now have case law saying that income from the charge notices is paid as a condition of the contract, and therefore constitutes consideration for a supply of services.

Surely this means it is not enrichment, or indeed a penalty. It is, as the court ruled, consideration for the supply of contracted services.

Where does that leave us?

PLEASE remember I'm playing Devil's advocate and don't go out hiring assassins against the evil Labman!