Parking Eye

[labman]

Re: Parking Eye

Hi, i too have now recieved a ParkingEye notice, however, i wish to get some advice, the letter was sent to me with my name mis-spelled, looking at my V5 reg document DVLA have also mis-spelled my name,
I have now written to DVLA to inform them of the error, but, where do i stand with regard to the notice sent by PE as it is addressed to a non existant person at my address?, can i ignore all further letters as they are not officially mine?



thanks

I would ignore them, but the issue of your name would be considered de minimis IF it ever went to court.

[prazey]

Re: Parking Eye

Thanks for the quick response, i have already sent off to DVLA to inform them of the error, think i just filed the form without checking origionally,
About the name bit though, can someone be taken to court if the court papers were issued in the wrong name? ie if the person named on letter was summoned, would i have to attend???

[labman]

Re: Parking Eye

Yes.

[blacklight]

Re: Parking Eye

Hello all, it appears I have joined the ranks of the accursed.

I visited a retail park in Shropshire a few weeks ago, and (according to the Parking Eye letter) overstayed by 11 minutes (!) over the 3 hour limit, and lo, they want £100, (or £60 if I pay up now). This is the 2nd letter, with about 10 days before the "charge" is "due".

There is no ticket/barrier controlled entry/exit system, it's simply drive in/out with a "maximum stay" of 3 hours, with no return in 4 hours. Anyway :

a) The pictures of my car show it queuing on the access road TO and FROM the carpark (which is presumably part of the retail park land) - but not parked. The second picture (exiting) shows the brake lights on both my car and the car in front, and other cars closely in line with it (busy!)

b) The queues referred to in (a) meant we could not park/leave the vehicle/exit 'immediately' and as such apparently they are timing from the moment a vehicle comes into view....which is (IMO) a bit cheeky, as you aren't getting 3 hours "parking", you're getting 3 hours "on the property" including the time spent getting on/off it.

c) I spent £99.99 in the retail park and have a bank statement to prove it

d) Their letter states signage is clearly displayed at the entrance to, and throughout the carpark. I have photographic evidence that no signage exists either at the entrance to, or upon entry to the carpark - it's only displayed ONCE you are in, and have already been recorded entering. It's also not big enough to read from within a car, especially whilst negotiating traffic! (the first sign is at a junction within the carpark)

e) The signage states "Parking limited to 3 hours" (which implies a parked, stationery vehicle). See (b) - they are counting total time on the property, not parked, and (see (a)) are not allowing any grace period to park/retrieve a vehicle.

f) The "other" signage within the carpark IS plentiful, however it's all above head height and the full t's & c's cannot be read by eye, unless you do what I did after I went back, and photograph it and then zoom in....but in the T's & C's the wording reads "By parking, waiting or otherwise remaining within this private car park"....

g) The T's & C's (again, once magnified) show that PE are not responsible for the surface condition of the carpark, and "Parking is at the absolute discretion of the landowner" (i.e not PE), but that PE are authorised by the Landowner to operate it for and on their behalf.

h) I've spoken to the store I spent the £99.99 in and they said they'd be happy to complete an authorisation form for me to overstay the 3 hours, but their staff themselves were receiving charges from PE and PE were not responding to their requests for authorisation forms. My details and those of my car are logged with the store in question.

So, can I happily ignore this?

In the event it did proceed (i.e. legal threats taken to an actual court), would anyone actually try to say they have a claim for a £100 charge when I've spent £100 in the park, obviously intended to leave on 3 hours (and physics and the photographs show I was mobile for at least a portion of the 3 hours and 11 minutes).....and their own claims of signage at the entrance are false....

Thanks in advance

[labman]

Re: Parking Eye

Have a read of the Parking Charge Notice bit of this, then you'll be able to make a decision! :beagle:

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...rking-Offences

[nemo]

Re: Parking Eye

@ blacklight

I'm not going to be much help with your query but just wanted to say that your circumstances are just as it happened in my case last week.

Having had a look at the abundance of data on the internet, I must admit that I've not reached a decision that I could say that I'm confident with. However, what I feel strongly is by not doing anything i.e. ignoring, PE is most likely to continue and harass with more unsavory letters but at not much real cost for them. Whereas if I appeal their charge aka. "the speculative invoice" then they are very likely to reject it giving me the opportunity to take the POPLA route. I understand that the POPLA appeal would cost PE money just for the appeal to be considered.

In the event where POPLA appeal fails then I plan to switch to ignore mode but what I am unsure is

1. will I complicate matters by engaging with PE in the first place?
2. albeit being a "private" dispute, will I weaken my position by not engaging or following the appeal process even though it may be inherently flawed or unjustly executed (due to my belief that PE is not in a position to charge for the "overstay" let alone then intimidate by sending an invoice for a service that is neither quantified nor performed correctly.

To do or not to do is the quandry I'm stuck in

Good luck and hopefully you'll come to a decision much quicker than I have!

[blacklight]

Re: Parking Eye

@ blacklight

1. will I complicate matters by engaging with PE in the first place?
2. albeit being a "private" dispute, will I weaken my position by not engaging or following the appeal process even though it may be inherently flawed or unjustly executed (due to my belief that PE is not in a position to charge for the "overstay" let alone then intimidate by sending an invoice for a service that is neither quantified nor performed correctly.

To do or not to do is the quandry I'm stuck in

Good luck and hopefully you'll come to a decision much quicker than I have!

Others have taken the approach of using a non-appeals related address to send their missives to, as (in my and their opinion) there is nothing to "appeal".

If it doesn't "go away" after a firmly worded communication, then I would probably engage the (at their expense) POPLA route. I am trying (rather poorly) to contact the centre managers/agents, as I suspect they will be less than happy that paying customers of their clients (tennants) are hardly being encouraged back, especially at this period of festive abundance.....

[blondjoe]

Re: Parking Eye

Hi all, just found this forum after getting a parking notice charge off parkingeye. I parked in Colliers carpark, The Range St Helens, for 2 hours +29 mins. I went the carboot by there on a Sunday morning then went in their shop. I phoned the range & they told me that it was a private carpark & they didn't own it but wouldn't tell me who did. So they want me to pay £100. or £60 if paid within 14 days for parking 29 mins over. Most of your advice says ignore, or should I offer them money for the 29 mins that I went over.

[labman]

Re: Parking Eye

Ignore IMO.

@Nemo - it's good to see someone researching this, and the appeal then ignore is one of the options from this site's advice. Personally speaking, I would totally ignore as long as you're prepared to put up with 3-5 increasingly threatening letters afterwards. They will then stop.

For issues over land ownership, the Land Registry is the place to go if you are really that concerned. It is highly unlikely Parking Eye own the car park, or indeed any car parks.

[blondjoe]

Re: Parking Eye

Thanks for the advice labman. After reading many of the posts on this forum there doesn't seem much that they can do apart from send more letters. I will keep updating as & when I get the letters. It's forums like this & people like you that give us the courage to fight these ripoff merchants.

Ignore IMO.

@Nemo - it's good to see someone researching this, and the appeal then ignore is one of the options from this site's advice. Personally speaking, I would totally ignore as long as you're prepared to put up with 3-5 increasingly threatening letters afterwards. They will then stop.

For issues over land ownership, the Land Registry is the place to go if you are really that concerned. It is highly unlikely Parking Eye own the car park, or indeed any car parks.

[blacklight]

Re: Parking Eye

An update for you.

I sent an email to their info address (not appeals), including photographs refuting the statements they make in their letters regarding signage and pointing out a few things.

I got an email (from appeals) stating the charge was cancelled.

I may go see if the signage suddenly changes....

[swifty]

Re: Parking Eye

An update for you.

I sent an email to their info address (not appeals), including photographs refuting the statements they make in their letters regarding signage and pointing out a few things.

I got an email (from appeals) stating the charge was cancelled.

I may go see if the signage suddenly changes....

way to go you, nice result:cancan:

[nemo]

Re: Parking Eye

Ignore IMO.

@Nemo - it's good to see someone researching this, and the appeal then ignore is one of the options from this site's advice. Personally speaking, I would totally ignore as long as you're prepared to put up with 3-5 increasingly threatening letters afterwards. They will then stop.

For issues over land ownership, the Land Registry is the place to go if you are really that concerned. It is highly unlikely Parking Eye own the car park, or indeed any car parks.

Thanks for that labman - personally its the thought of companies, fully legitimate on appearance, thinking that it's ok to send letters that are grossly misleading and deceptive with the sole intent of generating ill-obtained revenue is what upsets me the most. Secondly, how is it possible for this companies to operate in plain sight without detection or proper regulation?

Land ownership is not a point that I'm looking to explore as it's clear from the Department for Transport guidance that both the land owner and the land holder are able to recover an unpaid parking fee.

As for the charge itself, I am bemused how a demand of £50 payment for 30min overstay in a 3hr free park (subject to the signage is clear and visible - which wasn't the case ) can be perceived to comply with the below - the more I read the info on the net and this forum, the more I get wound up.

"Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken. For example, to cover the unpaid charges and the administrative costs associated with issuing the ticket to recover the charges. Charges may not be set at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalise the driver."

[labman]

Re: Parking Eye

Indeed it is a penalty, and as such is unlawful. Land ownership and land holder are issues as you may well find Parking Eye are neither, and often the land is held by several different companies (-eg- a retail park). Without total agreement, there is a serious question as to whether any can reclaim charges. You might have been dealing purely with the one who hasn't agreed. Often companies don't even realise they have to.

Still brilliant you're doing the research though. Please keep posting up, as you may well come across something we ave not read.

[ticketcollector]

Re: Parking Eye

To everyone out there that has been sent a letter asking to pay a fine, I am now on my seventh set of letters, they usualy come in sets of four or five for each "incident", gradually getting more threatening then ending up as a debt collecting agency, threatening baliffs, court appearences and the threat of losing your credit rating. I have never had so much amusement in my life as I do when I recieve one of these letters, I even go out of my way to use these car parks to collect more of them. I do now however have to use my partners / familys cars as they ignore mine these days, just did a 12 hour stint and not a peep from them. So. enjoy the letters, laugh at them, dont respond and cherish the warm feeling that each letter costs them to post, then go and park in the same place all over again, I may also start to wave at the camera on the way out :santa_smiley: