Parking Eye

[Darnun]

Re: Parking Eye

Unsure, to be honest, swifty. Do you think I should message Welcome Break first before I send anything off to PE or should I change something in the letter to PE.

[swifty]

Re: Parking Eye

1 point do PE own the land? think you'll find they are contracted by welcome break

[Darnun]

Re: Parking Eye

OK So I have just had the second letter from parking eye demanding the £100 and I have had enough already and decided to send the following to the appeals email address. Can you all tell me if it's ok or anything you think I should add. Hilarious part to all this are the pictures of the original charge letter. The first has me on the slip road coming in and the scond shows my number plates and lights on, in the dark. Neither shows my car on the car park at all.

Anyway let me know what you think? :-)

Dear Sir / Madam,

I have received one of your parking Charges, not an official parking "fine" I add, for £100.


Firstly I have to say that the pictures you used on the letter, show absolutely nothing as the first is my car on the slip road coming in, NOT parked on your land and the second just shows my headlights and number plate in the dark, again could be anywhere. Neither photo show my car in the car park AT ALL.


I woud also add that I had met with friends at the Welcome Break in question. one parked in the car park coming from the north and another park in the same car park as myself.
All, agreed they were there the same time as me, all agreed they had no idea of any parking charges and none of them have received such charge. Due to inconsistency of who you send these out to, makes me believe your system is not fair, at best.


The most important thing is, your parking charges are not legally enforceable. There is no legal contract and I am fully aware that all you are legally obliged to ask for is the money to cover any loss to your business / land. This would be the value of the parking ticket, that you suggest should have been paid on the day and the value of sending the letters out.
I am well aware of my rights and the legality of Parking Eye and their charges. As said before, the photos do not show my vehicle in your car park so am not sure how you can honestly enforce such charges.


I will also be writing to the manager of the Welcome Break in question, as well as my local police about this.


Due to all the above information and being very aware of my rights, I will not be paying the extortionate charge.

[bluebottle]

Re: Parking Eye

The above needs to be treated with a slight pinch of salt (sorry BB lol!) Marking a cheque 'In Full and Final Settlement' means nothing in itself. The company can cash the cheque and write to you immediately (it needs to be within about 3 days of receipt) stating they're accepting the cheque in part payment towards the debt. This could effectively mean you're acknowledging their demand. It would be better, if you were taking that route, to write a covering letter stating that the attached cheque is proprtionate to any monies owing, and should only be cashed if they are willing to accept it as full and final settlement of any alleged monies owing. It is not an acknowledgement of any debt, but discharges any alleged indetedness they feel you may have towards them entirely. Then write on the cheque Only cash if you are accepting the terms and conditions of the attached letter.

I don't know legally if this would stand up, but it is more likely to than writing just 'In F&F' on the cheque.

The advice given by BB is sound though, if there was a charge, you are only liable for what you should have paid, plus a token amount towards their expenses. It cannot be a penalty.

Absolutely, Labman. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is very specific about this.

Re: Parking Eye

The above needs to be treated with a slight pinch of salt (sorry BB lol!) Marking a cheque 'In Full and Final Settlement' means nothing in itself. The company can cash the cheque and write to you immediately (it needs to be within about 3 days of receipt) stating they're accepting the cheque in part payment towards the debt. This could effectively mean you're acknowledging their demand. It would be better, if you were taking that route, to write a covering letter stating that the attached cheque is proprtionate to any monies owing, and should only be cashed if they are willing to accept it as full and final settlement of any alleged monies owing. It is not an acknowledgement of any debt, but discharges any alleged indebtedness they feel you may have towards them entirely. Then write on the cheque Only cash if you are accepting the terms and conditions of the attached letter.

I don't know legally if this would stand up, but it is more likely to than writing just 'In F&F' on the cheque.

The advice given by BB is sound though, if there was a charge, you are only liable for what you should have paid, plus a token amount towards their expenses. It cannot be a penalty.

[bluebottle]

Re: Parking Eye

The changes that came into force on 1st October 2012 do not give PPCs carte blanche to threaten, lie or cheat motorists out of money. The exact opposite, in fact. It makes PPCs and landowners jump through hoops to make sure they cannot. Was a parking fee chargeable for parking after a free of charge period? If so, they can ask you to pay that and a reasonable charge for sending the letter out. So if, say, for example, there was a £5.00 charge for overnight parking, they can legally ask you to pay that, as a contract then exists, and a reasonable amount for sending one letter out. If this is, indeed, the case, you can send them a cheque for no more than £10.00 clearly marked "FULL AND FINAL SETTLEMENT". Any Parking Charge Notice which is or which amounts to a penalty - which most always are - is illegal and cannot be enforced.

[d-mart]

Re: Parking Eye

Hi all.

So I've been reading through all the information on this site, all the links etc in what to do when dealing with a Parking Eye Parking Charge Notice and I'm still a bit unsure.

I pulled up at Welcome Break London Gateway on the M1, I was meant to be staying with friends that night in London but their car broke down which meant I had to spend the night in my car. I was planning to just ignore as most people seem to be doing, I'm fine with receiving letter after letter. The reason I'm slightly more worried that they could enforce this is the fact I spent just under 12hrs there and most people seem to just over step by 30mins - 2hrs.

Due to the length of time spent there does anyone reckon that I'll be particularly "at risk"? Or is the length of time irrelevant?

Also due to changes made in Oct 2012 are people more at risk now?

Thanks for any help you can give.

Re: Parking Eye

There's no way a criminal conviction would be secured on the basis of one complaint though, it would need loads of them - far more than we could realistically generate from this site.

[bluebottle]

Re: Parking Eye

So, i see Debt Recovery Plus hold a CCL. This, I assume, means they MUST follow OFT debt recovery guidance. What part of their response letter (or website) adheres to the OFT guidance?

Have a look through the most up-to-date OFT Debt Collection Guidelines and you shall find the answers. Yes, if a business holds an OFT Category F Licence, they MUST obey OFT Debt Collection Guidelines as a condition of their licence. However, if they are making demands for payment of an alleged debt that is not enforceable in law, there is an argument that they breach not only the terms of their licence, but the Criminal Law, also. A criminal conviction can hasten or result in the revocation of an OFT Licence, as it brings into question the fitness of the business to hold such a licence.

Re: Parking Eye

So, i see Debt Recovery Plus hold a CCL. This, I assume, means they MUST follow OFT debt recovery guidance. What part of their response letter (or website) adheres to the OFT guidance?

[bluebottle]

Re: Parking Eye

From what I've read in this thread, the only thing Debt Recovery Plus are likely to achieve, if peeps stand up to them, is loss of reputation and loss of their OFT licence. I have to agree that most of the alleged CCJs on their website are, in all probability, default judgements, which have of no bearing on the legality of Debt Recovery Plus's clients' actions.

One thing that might put Debt Recovery Plus in an awkward position is to require them to prove -

a. they have a right in law to make a demand on behalf of PE and the landowner; and
b. that PE and the landowner have a right in law to make the demand; and
c. that they have a right in law to make the threats they are making; and
d. that the use of threats is a proper means of enforcing the demands they are making.

My gut-feeling is that Debt Recovery Plus would find it very difficult to provide answers to these challenges without dropping themselves, PE and the landowner totally in the slurry-pit.

Re: Parking Eye

Still not sure tbh Swifty. After all, it's not like companies operating in this area have been have been known to bend, stretch or make-up their own rules in the past; is it? I wonder, has anyone challenged this company about this? Has anyone reported this company about this?

If it is against "the rules" they'll keep doing it until they get their knuckles rapped..........just like all other companies who are after your money.

[swifty]

Re: Parking Eye

Here's a link to the website if anyone's interested
http://www.debtrecoveryplus.co.uk/countycourtjudgements/?oo=0

Re: Parking Eye

I'm not sure either, but I suspect the ICO would not take much interest anyway. There's never any harm in alerting them to it though.

Re: Parking Eye

You may be correct Labman. I've never seen or heard of any company adopting this practice before though. I wasn't aware the names of people with CCJ's could be used in such a manner either. It is true businesses can "check out" if someone has a CCJ before doing business with them however I'm not sure a business can "use" those names in this way. I'm willing to learn though.