ParkingEye Court threat

[mystery1]

Re: ParkingEye Court threat

Has your case been allocated to a track yet ?

It seems from the above that they wish to re allocate which seems weird.

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pro...s/part26#26.10

Re-allocation
26.10 The court may subsequently re-allocate a claim to a different track.

Perhaps phone the court and enquire.

M1

[des8]

Re: ParkingEye Court threat

Do you think there is a typo error and they meant CPR27.10

[mystery1]

Re: ParkingEye Court threat

Do you think there is a typo error and they meant CPR27.10

Good call. I think you're right.

M1

[MrNye]

Re: ParkingEye Court threat

Yes it's gone to allocation, It says CPR 26.10 on the letter.

What is CPR 27.10?

Why don't they explain in English what it means in the letter? :nono:

[mystery1]

Re: ParkingEye Court threat

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pro...s/part27#27.10

Disposal without a hearing
27.10 The court may, if all parties agree, deal with the claim without a hearing.

M1

[MrNye]

Re: ParkingEye Court threat

I phoned this morning, and was told that it means that the judge has requested that the hearing is dealt with by paperwork only. I agreed to that.

[pjk03]

Re: ParkingEye Court threat

Hi i have just had a run in with parking eye and found some info that may be of help a phone number 01772450970 or you can call the payment line opp 2and just hold and after 2 messages you go to an adviser
this has helped me being able to talk to some one hope you find this helpful

[MrNye]

Re: ParkingEye Court threat

AMAZING! the judge totally ignored the fact that ParkingEye ignore the BPA's code of practise and he ignored my photo evidence that 100% showed I was not in the car park at the times alleged, and has ordered me to pay £150!

I've always paid my bills and fines in the past, but I wasn't going to pay when I knew I was in the right, but a stupid judge had other ideas :tinysmile_hmm_t2:. very cross!

The attached picture shows that their camera misses cars that leave the car park and turn right.

[mystery1]

Re: ParkingEye Court threat

Sorry to hear that.

If you want to put your defence up now feel free. Any pointers where you feel others will benefit. Also did the Cambridge case come up ?

M1

[MrNye]

Re: ParkingEye Court threat

I don't think I would have anything to help others, basically the judge said that I would had to have a photo of my car on my drive at the alleged day and time, any other evidence he would ignore. So he's saying everyone should take date and time stamped pictures of your car ever few minutes, else ParkingEye can charge you.

[des8]

Re: ParkingEye Court threat

sorry to hear you lost.
It would be good to see your defence as it could help others to see where it went wrong.

[MrNye]

Re: ParkingEye Court threat

This was my witness defence, probably not the best, but when you're innocent and can provide photo evidence you don't expect for one minute that a judge would be in favour of ParkingEye.


ParkingEye claim that I owe then £85 for parking in the B&Q car park for 4 hours 13 minutes on the 03/10/2013. This claim is totally untrue.

My defence in short is twofold:
1. ParkingEye have no case because they fail to stick to the legal requirements of following the British Parking Associations code of practice (see below).
2. Even if I had agreed to ParkingEye’s contract (which I didn’t) I would not have breached it, because my car was parked on my drive outside my house on the day and times that ParkingEye claim (see the photo evidence attached and details below). Their system has obviously captured multiple visits to the B&Q store.

Attached Photos:
entranceobstruction.JPG (demonstrates how easy it is for an obstruction of the entrance camera to occur)
carleaveingright.JPG (shows that the exit camera cannot see a car’s registration plate when the car approaches from the left and turns right)
noticereminder.JPG (shows that ParkingEye’s letters are very much designed to look like a council or police parking fine)
signage.JPG (show that ParkingEye have failed to follow the BPA’s Code of Practice)
PA030127.JPG (a picture taken by me of the work I was doing on my bathroom, the date stamp can be seen as 2013/10/03 (3^rd October 2013))
PA030131.JPG (a picture taken by me of the work I was doing on my bathroom, the date stamp can be seen as 2013/10/03 (3^rd October 2013))
Photoproperties.jpg (is a screen shot of the properties of the 2 pictures above, which includes the date and the time that these pictures were taken)


ABOUT PARKINGEYE
A polite description of ParkingEye is an overzealous parking Management Company, that have sprung up all over England in retail parks. I do understand that there is a need to stop people abusing these car parking areas but my opinion and the opinion of 1000’s of other people is that ParkingEye are in business to steal from unsuspecting shoppers, and all evidence supports that.

BBC’s WATCHDOG ; FAILURE TO FOLLOW BPA’s CODE OF PRACTICE
ParkingEye are supposed to follow the BPA’s (British Parking Association) strict code of practice, but as pointed out in 2012 by the BBC’s Watchdog program, ParkingEye ignore the code when it comes to correct signage and misrepresentation of authority.

BPA’s Code of Practise 18.2 APPENDIX B ENTRANCE SIGNS
“Entrance signs must meet minimum general principles and be in a standard format. The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park, and follow Department for Transport guidance. Industry-accepted sign designs and guidance on how to use the signs are in Appendix B.”
1."The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead. "
This is often ignored by ParkingEye, the entrance signs to the retail park in question are placed both sides of the entrance but cannot be read without stopping on the main road (see attached photo signage.jpg) .
2. "The capital height for Group 1 text will depend on the approach speed of traffic" "Parking area entered immediately by turning off a 30 mph road, Minimum capital height for Group 1 text 60mm"
This is another requirement often ignored by ParkingEye, the entrance signs to the retail park in question, the biggest letter is just 38mm high.
Obviously these requirements are in the BPA’s Code of Practice for a reason, and that is so the signs are seen. The retail park in question has had no restrictions on parking for 15/20 years, if a parking management company suddenly appears; they need to make their entrance signs clear and unmissable. It is my belief that ParkingEye ignore these requirements because they would catch less unsuspecting shoppers and that would damage their revenue.
I can send proof that ParkingEye still ignore these codes.

Misrepresentation of authority
14.1 “You will be breaching the Code if you suggest to the public that you are providing parking enforcement under statutory authority.”
14.2 “You must not use terms which imply that parking is being managed, controlled and enforced under statutory authority. This includes using terms such as ‘fine’, ‘penalty’ or ‘penalty charge notice’.”
19.1 “When you issue a parking charge notice the charges you make have to be reasonable.”
ParkingEye’s notice reminder that I received is very much designed to look like a fixed penalty notice (see attached noticereminder.jpg) although they have now removed the checkered border that the BBC’s Watchdog complained about that made it look like it had been sent by the police.
ParkingEye are allowed to make a reasonable charge for parking on private land, representing the charge as a penal charge is a breach of the code, yet ParkingEye use the words “Failure to comply” on their signs. Also £85 is not a “reasonable” charge when a car park just a few meters away charges £3.20 for all day parking.
ParkingEye have got bullying down to a fine art and are now using the courts as a bullying tool and unfortunately it seems to be working. It looks like 1000’s of people are just paying unfair charges because of the threat of court action, ParkingEye sent me a 13 page double sided document full of examples of court cases where judgement was in their favour, It’s obviously meant to give the impression that the courts will always side with ParkingEye (But I know this is NOT true).

Other Code of Practise breaches
21.7 “You must post the parking charge notice to the keeper as soon as possible. Your target is to send the parking charge notice to the keeper of the vehicle no more than 14 days after receiving the keeper data from the DVLA”
The first notice I received was 18 days after the alleged parking offence.

see attached photos:
PA030127.JPG a picture taken by me of the work I was doing on my bathroom, the date stamp can be seen as 2013/10/03 (3^rd October 2013)
PA030131.JPG a picture taken by me of the work I was doing on my bathroom, the date stamp can be seen as 2013/10/03 (3^rd October 2013)
Photoproperties.jpg is a screen shot of the properties of the 2 pictures above, which includes the date and the time that these pictures were taken, the time was reordered automatically by my camera which takes it’s time wirelessly from the internet and is correct to within one hundredth of a second.
When I took these pictures my car was on my drive outside my house NOT PARKED IN THE B&Q CAR PARK!

[MrNye]

Re: ParkingEye Court threat

I'm not sure if you can view the attached photos.

[bluebottle]

Re: ParkingEye Court threat

Is it possible the judge was suffering from some form of dementia when they made their decision? What he has advocated is not that of a reasonable or right-minded person and should be appealed on the grounds that no reasonable or right-minded person would have come to the conclusion or made the decision he did.

Photos of a vehicle entering and leaving a car park are not evidence that it is has parked in that car park. It also bears out my argument that PPCs can quite easily select and manipulate images to suit their ends.

[des8]

Re: ParkingEye Court threat

Thanks for posting up.
Just hope that on my next visit to court the hearing is conducted by a judge who is fully compos mentis.
Always said the legal system is a bit of a lottery.