Parking Eye

[alham]

Re: Parking Eye

That was my understand - until I looked at some of the Assessor's remarks in some POPLA appeal judgements; for example:

"The submissions I believe the Operator is trying to make is not that the Appellant has breached the contract giving rise to damages, as the Appellant appears to believe, but that the Operator is seeking to enforce the contract. This is because the Operator is seeking payment of the charge which the Appellant accepted as a term of the contract by parking his vehicle at Alma Leisure Park. The contract cannot now in effect be renegotiated.
The parking charge is therefore not classed as damages or a penalty for breach, either of which might be linked to actual loss resulting from a breach and would need the Operator to prove that the parking charge was a genuine pre-estimate of loss."

Or am I misreading what the Assessor is saying?

Remember, POPLA are funded by the parking operators. And they are technically incorrect, there are a number of cases where this "charge" was found to be a penalty.

[Rodney]

Re: Parking Eye

Thank you Clever Clogs. I probably will not refer to them as 'pernicious parasites' in my defence, as that will, most likely, serve me no favours at all. They probably did refer to specifics in the initial letters, just not in the court claim. Never mind, I will give them all the stuff that I know in an annoyingly impartial manner. (People hate it when I do that!), though if it comes to a hearing, the judge will probably order me to pay a reasonable sounding £5 for a penalty fee, and a million pounds for wasting his own lost time on the golf course. Don't you think it is wrong that the real people to suffer in all this are the elderly and vulnerable who lose their pension and heating allowance to feed the pockets of these companies? That is simply because in the so called Protections of Freedoms act, they (The parking companies) have been given an extra ID card to bully people

[Puff67]

Re: Parking Eye

I've attached the reply I received from Civil Enforcement Ltd., for information... Hope this is helpful.

is this company not yet another debt collecting agency? Nothing to do with courts and their procedure if what I read is correct, yet they still want you to pay them - under duress IMO! Someone please tell me if I'm wrong, interesting wording in the doc tho! All geared to "frighten" you into paying an unreasonable amount.
What proof did they have that the car park was filled to capacity - their claim is quite bizarre and from all I've read the onus is on them to prove you/anyone took up space that could have been filled otherwise - what with punters who may/or not purchase. Looking at retail car park scenario here. If it is free for x amount of hours - who looses in which case - crux being unless you're not buying while there - and loss would only be the stores, so have they an invexted interst in this. God so many what ifs and going in circles here!
When is this huge scenario going to come to government attention - anyone got ideas on what can be done - it is outrageous with so many folks logging on to view and seek help and advice not this. I'll sign up now to campaign to stop unfair charges.

[Techwreckie]

Re: Parking Eye

I've attached the reply I received from Civil Enforcement Ltd., for information... Hope this is helpful.

Re: Parking Eye

You must either pay the sum demanded or apply for the judgement to be set aside, but the latter will only really work if you can enter a valid defence.

Go to your local law centre - link - for help with this.

Should you ever find the moron who told you to ignore "the print out from Northampton Crown court" (sic) - or County Court - please kick him in the goolies sufficiently often to prevent him from breeding. msl:

[Sassysmum]

Re: Parking Eye

Hiya

Am a newbie on here and from this thread appear to be in the same situation as many on here

Last year we parked at Fistral Beach, sat in the car due to bad weather and watched the surf boys. Having parked here free for several years we failed to notice the new parking fee etc enforced by the wonderful Parking Eye.

On our return home we got the letter stating the fine, showing the photos of us entering and leaving the car park having over stayed by 20 mins.

As suggested on here I ignored various letters, some reducing the "fine" some more threatening. Then we had what looked like a print out for Northampton Crown court - ignored it, now I have a "Notice of Issue of Warrant of Execution" the amount is now £275.00 payable before 30th April or the Baliffs will call and remove goods etc.

I am a little more concerned now but I am thinking how do they even know we have had any of these letters? We have not signed anything to say we have! Also, the have spelt my Husbands name wrong on everything they have sent us.

Advice on what to do next please would be appreciated because this is really peeing me off now

[Puff67]

Re: Parking Eye

FunkyGibbon - my sentiments exactly on your last but one line re wasting the courts time - it is a dilema for me too. My scenario is almost identical to yours - 3 stores shopped in and spent some £193 between them all - so no loss of revenue for them. However as this had been an entirely free car park for at least the past 15 years and I did not notice or see any signs when it suddenly became "free for 3 hours then £85" beyond that - my thinking is that why should I beleive that letters I have received for a "parking charge" is anything other than a scam!
You don't get into dialogue and therefore ignore, if you receive some piece of diatribe from an obscure Nigerian bank telling you you've got an inheritence or won a lottery - but need to pay them to receive it - had one of those too many years ago! So my arguement is that if I did not see any signs - and indeed why should I be looking for them in a previously free car park - how can I have agreed to the parking eye "supposed" contract that penalises me if I stay beyond their allotted free time. I do wonder if "appealing" to the stores I shopped in might make this all go away - tho from all I have read that does not work either. Suffice to say they have all lost my business since last year.
Like you I am standing firm on this one, albeit waiting now for more DCP threats to arrive.

[swifty]

Re: Parking Eye

Question! when PE approaches Morrison's, Hombase or any Business park how do they secure a contract?
Do PE offer a one off start up payment or do PE offer a percentage of gains.
There's gotta be something other than solving a retail parks parking issues, from what I've seen round my neck of the woods there's never really been a problem with car parks being used for anything other than the super market or businesses within the retail park.
So the way I see it PE must be offering something other than offering to manage their car parks

[FunkyGibbon]

Re: Parking Eye

Hi all,
First off I've found the responces on this thread to be both helpfull and reasuring.


I see alot of mention of Free Car Parks then parking charges being due, how if it's a free car park, yes if it's a pay & display.


I have checked the letters I have recieved and they are worded as Parking Charge Notice, today I recieved the 2nd letter from DRP same as others have reported on this thread, I'm quite prepared to go to court if it should go that far but how much of a defence would I have.


I stayed half hour over a 2 hour limit in a retail car park, as i understood it was 2 hours free parking outside the shop, I have 3 store receipts to say we visited the shop 3 times within the time we overstayed totalling around £50, so I beleive there is no claim for the shop for loss of revinue and if it's a free car park how can they attach a charge to it?


as i see it all the store can do is estimate what the average customer would have spent in the 30 minutes we over stayed, as it's a discount clothing store and I have 3 women with me the £50 odd quid they spent between then should cover it, but how would a judge see it?


so far I have ignored all letters from parking eye who initiated the charge and now debt recovery plus, but im half a mind to just write to them and say look here's the evidence or should i just stand firm?


what I don't want is if it gets to court and have a judge say well why didn't you just contact the PPC with this evidence and not waste the courts time.


It's so hard to know what to do, Im still standing firm but every letter knocks another brick from my foundations, I'm worried i'll crack, there were other curcumstances leading to the overstay but i've rambled enough.

[andyb000!]

Re: Parking Eye

The CCJs DRP crow about are, you will find, almost entirely default judgements, which means they were not defended. The fact is, the PPCs (Parking Parasite Colonies) cannot legitimately claim where no actual or quantifiable loss has been suffered and/or the charge is or appears to be an unenforceable penalty. They have to prove loss suffered and that a "parking charge" is not an unenforceable penalty.

That was my understand - until I looked at some of the Assessor's remarks in some POPLA appeal judgements; for example:

"The submissions I believe the Operator is trying to make is not that the Appellant has breached the contract giving rise to damages, as the Appellant appears to believe, but that the Operator is seeking to enforce the contract. This is because the Operator is seeking payment of the charge which the Appellant accepted as a term of the contract by parking his vehicle at Alma Leisure Park. The contract cannot now in effect be renegotiated.
The parking charge is therefore not classed as damages or a penalty for breach, either of which might be linked to actual loss resulting from a breach and would need the Operator to prove that the parking charge was a genuine pre-estimate of loss."

Or am I misreading what the Assessor is saying?

[The Cosmic Connection]

Re: Parking Eye

The CCJs DRP crow about are, you will find, almost entirely default judgements, which means they were not defended. The fact is, the PPCs (Parking Parasite Colonies) cannot legitimately claim where no actual or quantifiable loss has been suffered and/or the charge is or appears to be an unenforceable penalty. They have to prove loss suffered and that a "parking charge" is not an unenforceable penalty.

[andyb000!]

Re: Parking Eye

Just been looking at the Debt Recovery Plus (the people who issued the Notice of Intented Litigation) website where I found this:

"County court judgements

Contrary to what you may have read on various web forums Debt Recovery Plus Ltd DOES apply for county court judgements's (CCJ's) against individuals and companies who resist payment of parking charge notices. Please don't believe everything you read on the forums. See the list below for some of the CCJ's we have successfully applied for in recent months"

and this is followed by a scrolling list of apparent CCJ 'victims'...

Mr Hysen Sefri 0QT26001 £135.00
Elemir Dirda 0QT26871 £115.00
Mr Jozef Demlak 0QT26987 £125.00
Mr Robert Pulko 0QT27553 £395.00
Mr Scott Wallace 0QT26996 £125.00
Miss Samantha Kelly 0QT12460 £135.00
Mr Philip Oyewale 0QT27003 £125.00
Mr Barrie Lambe 0QT29016 £115.00
Mr Mark Glynn 0QT27008 £115.00
Miss Cheryl Bennett 0QT06091 £125.00
Mr Claud Mkosi 9QZ66141 £136.00
Mr Matthew Keane 9QZ66050 £820.00
Mr Gary Robinson 0QT27073 £125.00
Samir Higgins 0QT27063 £125.00
Mr Ian Gregory 0QT06078 £130.00
Mr Wisdom Sabawu 9QZ66504 £980.00
N & A AutoCentre 0QT14107 £125.00
Mr Jason Farrar 9QZ53651 £125.00
Mrs Barbara Fella 0QT06070 £130.00
Mr Viktor Balog 0QT27051 £125.00
Mr Alan McDonald 0QT26881 £115.00
Mr Mohamed Ramdani 0QT27270 £115.00
Miss Janine Langley 9QZ36272 £133.40
Miss Victoria Steir 0QT52733 £170.00
Mrs Kim Tyssen 0QT28405 £155.00

It's interesting to note that this is largely the same list (with five additions after Mr Balog) that was posted on another forum in Nov 2011... also the implication in the text is that these are successful CCJs for parking-related infringements.

However, I have no wish to be added to such a list - so can I get some reassurance please?

[andyb000!]

Re: Parking Eye

Did you tell the parking parasites who the driver was?

No, I didn't - I've been following previous advice to completely ignore all that comes through the letterbox.

Was this approach incorrect in my case?

Re: Parking Eye

It would certainly be interesting to learn how they might make any claim stand up.

[Beaver15]

Re: Parking Eye

Like many other on this thread, I have just received a letter of intended litigation from DPR with two more expected to follow in the next couple of days. I have no real defence for them. I over-stayed in a free, 3 hour stay car park (parking eye) knowing I couldnt be charged a penalty, which has been true of previous notices. But these relate to the notices from after october 2012. I am worried that having three outstanding notices within a few weeks of each other and no real defence as to why I was over the parking time, will result in myself losing alot of money. Considering this is a free car park, is it right to assume the company and land owner have no right to claim any losses?