Parking Eye

[andyb000!]

Re: Parking Eye

I think there is less chance of them pursuing you if you ignore them completely. Was it you who had court papers issued from Northampton a few weeks back? Any updates?

Not I - I've only had a Notice of Intended Litigation - so far...

[Crepello]

Re: Parking Eye

...and yet elsewhere the supposition seems to be that those named on DRP's successful CJ victims list were those that didn't engage?? :tinysmile_hmm_t2:

I think there is less chance of them pursuing you if you ignore them completely. Was it you who had court papers issued from Northampton a few weeks back? Any updates?

[andyb000!]

Re: Parking Eye

Here's another thought...

From Schedule 4:
"3(1)In this Schedule “relevant land” means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than—
(a)a highway maintainable at the public expense (within the meaning of section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980);
(b)a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority;
(c)any land (not falling within paragraph (a) or (b)) on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control. "

could the last ('statutory control') include land on which there are Planning Authority restrictions as part of Development Control as to the hours that the store (and therefore the car park) may be open?

A

[andyb000!]

Re: Parking Eye

To be honest I would ignore and NOT appeal. Once you start engaging with them they may see you as bait. The very few cases where PE appear to have taken court action (see above posts) is where some engagement has occurred. Just expect a few nasty, threatening letter for a couple of months.

...and yet elsewhere the supposition seems to be that those named on DRP's successful CJ victims list were those that didn't engage?? :tinysmile_hmm_t2:

[andyb000!]

Re: Parking Eye

Not sure if this has been raised before - as this thread is getting a bit long - but PE's PCN includes a warning that if you name the driver, and the person named denies being the driver, they will pursue you(!)

Where does that leave you if you have named the driver correctly and you are then pursued?

[ostell]

Re: Parking Eye

hello everybody.

Been reading this forum and i am sorry to repeat the same question over and over. But... Yesterday i got a parking charge notice from Parking eye for overstaying by 18 minutes. I was fuming. Until i read this forum i assumed it had to be paid so im glad ive stumbled across it. My question differs slightly because everyone else seems to have either not bought a ticket or overstayed in a pay and display car park. But i got my notice from an Aldi store where your entitled to stay for 90 minutes for free. Does this change anything or is it the same story. Ignore, ignore, ignore?

The preferred method for PE seems to be appeal then ignore, as the more experienced posters are saying. If you hunt around you will find threads which involve Aldi and the same situation you are in.

[Crepello]

Re: Parking Eye

hello everybody.

Been reading this forum and i am sorry to repeat the same question over and over. But... Yesterday i got a parking charge notice from Parking eye for overstaying by 18 minutes. I was fuming. Until i read this forum i assumed it had to be paid so im glad ive stumbled across it. My question differs slightly because everyone else seems to have either not bought a ticket or overstayed in a pay and display car park. But i got my notice from an Aldi store where your entitled to stay for 90 minutes for free. Does this change anything or is it the same story. Ignore, ignore, ignore?

To be honest I would ignore and NOT appeal. Once you start engaging with them they may see you as bait. The very few cases where PE appear to have taken court action (see above posts) is where some engagement has occurred. Just expect a few nasty, threatening letter for a couple of months.

Re: Parking Eye

Let that be a lesson to you - don't shop at Aldi ! msl:

Re: Parking Eye

The preferred approach is to appeal and then ignore, ignore, ignore. I have had one from Aldi and one from my local retail park to date, and both were free car parks. To be fair, the Aldi one was withdrawn as I was administering first aid to an old lady who had collapsed which made me late back, but even had that not been the case it would have been appeal and then ignore.

[danfearn77]

Re: Parking Eye

hello everybody.

Been reading this forum and i am sorry to repeat the same question over and over. But... Yesterday i got a parking charge notice from Parking eye for overstaying by 18 minutes. I was fuming. Until i read this forum i assumed it had to be paid so im glad ive stumbled across it. My question differs slightly because everyone else seems to have either not bought a ticket or overstayed in a pay and display car park. But i got my notice from an Aldi store where your entitled to stay for 90 minutes for free. Does this change anything or is it the same story. Ignore, ignore, ignore?

[bluebottle]

Re: Parking Eye

I've just noticed that on the received 'Notice of Intended Litigation', under the heading 'Parking Charge Details', where it states the 'Parking Charge Date' it is in the format: "xx/1x/2012 00:00:00", which to my mind must mean that, as they have bothered to include it, the 'contravention' took place at that time - ie midnight.

But the car wasn't parked there at that time. is this enough to invalidate the demand/NOIL?

It may be sufficient to bring into question the veracity of the claim. If you can show the vehicle was not parked where they claim it was parked at 00:00:00 on the date they claim and they have stated that time on the N1 and any Witness Statement or Statement of Truth, they could have difficulty convincing a court the claim was valid, notwithstanding that the claim is, in all probability, dodgy anyway.

[andyb000!]

Re: Parking Eye

I've just noticed that on the received 'Notice of Intended Litigation', under the heading 'Parking Charge Details', where it states the 'Parking Charge Date' it is in the format: "xx/1x/2012 00:00:00", which to my mind must mean that, as they have bothered to include it, the 'contravention' took place at that time - ie midnight.

But the car wasn't parked there at that time. is this enough to invalidate the demand/NOIL?

A

[bluebottle]

Re: Parking Eye

The ruling against VCS was made by the Upper Tier Tribunal, which has the same status as the High Court and can, therefore, set a precedent.

Re: Parking Eye

Even if they were County Court judgements, they may be informative but would not set a binding precedent.

[andyb000!]

Re: Parking Eye

"..there are a number of cases where this "charge" was found to be a penalty."

Are these County Court Judgements? If so can you provide examples?

Thanks in anticiaption

Andy