Parking eye - (again it seems?)

[mum2popsnjak]

Hello everyone. I am new to this site but am hoping to get some advice. I am not clued up on the details around Parking Charge notices, i will post so far what has happened and hope to get some advice on whether to just pay this notice or not. I initially read to ignore all correspondance from Parking Eye (and any other Private Parking comapnies) but have since read this is not the current advice as Parking Eye has started taking people to court.

I received a Parking Charge notice from Parking Eye this morning for £85 reduced to £50 if paid within 14days of issue. This Parking Charge shows two pictures of my partners car entering and leaving the carpark. One is timed 16.14 and the other 18.45. It was in Barnstaple Retail Park carpark. The limit on free parking is apparently 2hours. Therefor i exceeded the free parking by 30mins.
My partner is the registered keeper of the car, therefor the notice is in his name, however i was the driver on that occasion.
I was not aware that the time limit was 2hours, i thought it was 3hours. I am not sure why i thought that, i just had in my head it was 3hours and so was not expecting to get a ticket for overstaying.

As i mentioned above, i would like some help with this issue if possible. I have never received ANY kind of parking notice and their intimidating tactics with legal jargon quoting protections of freedoms act etc included in their letters are scary for me.

Thankyou in advance for any help Xx

[ostell]

Re: Parking eye - (again it seems?)

Don't let on who was the driver! Your partner will be writing to Parking Eye appealing that the charge is not a true estimate of their loss and they don't have a contract to charge. The appeal will be rejected and should provide you with a code for POPLA. The appeal to POPLA is written using specific phrases and should guarantee that the charge is cancelled. Search for Parking Eye within this forum to see what should be sent to POPLA . And post the POPLA appeal on here to see if it is correct before sending.

You may also want to look at the pepipoo forums which also deal with matters like this, as do several others.

[mystery1]

Re: Parking eye - (again it seems?)

Dear Sirs,

I, as registered keeper, wish to invoke your appeals procedure. The driver did not see the signs and was unaware of the time limit. The charges are also penal in nature and not a genuine pre estimate f loss. I am under no statutory obligation to name the driver and will not do so.

Should you reject my appeal please supply a popla code.

Yours etc


When they reject your appeal use a popla appeal such as http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...-Appeal-Letter which has proven successful in the past.

M1

[mum2popsnjak]

Re: Parking eye - (again it seems?)

Thankyou for you replies. Especially you mystery1. I have set the wheels in motion and lodged an Appeal with Parking Eye online using your registered keeper line above and asking for a POPLA code.
I hope you don't mind me asking if i need any further assistance with this. As i say, i know nothing at all about it and find it all quite daunting tbh. Xx

[mystery1]

Re: Parking eye - (again it seems?)

Thankyou for you replies. Especially you mystery1. I have set the wheels in motion and lodged an Appeal with Parking Eye online using your registered keeper line above and asking for a POPLA code.
I hope you don't mind me asking if i need any further assistance with this. As i say, i know nothing at all about it and find it all quite daunting tbh. Xx

No worries at all

M1

[mum2popsnjak]

Re: Parking eye - (again it seems?)

Hello again guys. I submitted my appeal to parking eye and asked them to provide a POPLA code should my appeal be unsuccessful. As expected they have now written to my partner saying the appeal was unsuccessful and issuing a POPLA code, they have also said they will offer a 'gesture of goodwill' and extend the reduced rate of payment for a further 14days from issue of the appeal rejection letter. However, they also included a LOT of recent cases that had gone to court. Obviously all of those cases were ruled in favour of parking eye with one person ordered to pay £200! A lot of the cases they have provided details of also had mentioned that the appelant received information to appeal via online sites like this one (although didn't mention this particular site by name).

Now i know that these cases are deliberately included to try and put people off appealing to POPLA and it is a deliberate measure to try and get people like myself that don't want to get into trouble or have the hassle of going to court to just pay up BUT it kind of works. I don't have the money to pay the £85 they are saying will HAVE to be paid (unless i go to court) should the POPLA appeal is rejected (as no further extension of the price reduction will be made after the next 14days) and i REALLY don't want to have to go to court. But i also don't want these money grabbing BLEEPERS to get their way and get a rediculous sum of money for me being 30mins past their deadline at a time when only ONE of the shops on the retail park was even still open!

Here is the reason for rejecting my appeal and a couple of the cases they quoted in the recent correspondance they sent:-

Pre-estimate of loss and commercial justification
The appealant has made submissions either stating or indicating that he does not believe that the parking charge amount is reasonable and/or a genuine pre-estimate of loss. ParkingEye should make it clear at this juncture that the commonly held legal argument that the amount claimed for breach of contract should reflect the losses incurred by the breach (and if they do not they should be considered a penalty) is no longer the method adopted by judges when deciding whether a charge is a penalty or not. Recently, Judges have found the commercial justificatin argument to be more persuasive. This legal precedent essentially creates a third category for judging such charges, a charge for contractual breach does not necessarily need to be a pre-estimate of loss to be enforceable in law. There is much court authority to support this argument and as stated above is commonly held by the courts as the method in which a contractual charge should be considered either a penalty, a pre-estimate of loss or enforceable on the basis of there being a commercial justification for the charge.ParkingEye would therefore argue that the charge (and the charge amount) is legally enforceable on the following 3 grounds.
a) that there is strong commercial justification for the charge
b) that there is ample case law to suggest that the value of such a parking charge is not punitive
c) this notwithstanding ParkingEye can still provide evidence that this charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.We have also attached (Annex) for further evidence a sample of recent court hearings where judges have not found these charges to be either not a penalty or a genuine pre-estimate of loss. In every case the judgement for the full parking charge was awarded to ParkingEye. This would further substantiate ParkingEye's firm belief that it's parking charges, levied for breach of contract, are legally enforceable and cannot be classed as a penalty.(insert quote of ParkingEye Ltd v Mr Shelley (2013)..it then goes on about how ParkingEye believes it's charges are fair and reasonable and there is commercial justification for the charges for 2 paragraphs and quotes another case where a charge of £75 was found to be a reasonable charge and not a penalty, by which the motorist would be contractually bound (HHJ Hegarty QC ParkingEye v Somerfield stores (2011)and another couple of quotes where up to £135 was ruled as not excessiveIt then goes on to say that it is a very difficult industry to determine a completely accurate estimate of loss as it will depend on many factors....there will be losses to both ParkingEye themselves and the landholder and is dependant on factors such as the weather, time of day and day of the week.We have calculated the outstanding parking charge as a genuine pre-estimate of loss as we incur significant costs in managing this carpark to ensure motorists compley with the stated terms and conditions and to follow up breaches of these. These costs include but are not restricted toErection of signage, installation, monitoring and maintenance of the automatic number plate recognition systems, emplyment of office based admin staff, membership and other fees required to manage the business effectively including those paid to BPA, DVLA, and ICO, general costs including postage, and stationary.
(* i didn't think they could charge for running costs of the business in their estimate of loss???*)
This sum and the calculations which have been made in setting it has been approved and agreed by the landholder. This sum is also clearly laid out in the signage at the site and by remaining on site, we contend that the motorist has accepted all of the prevailing terms and conditions of that contract, including the charges for breach of contract. Furthermore there is commercial justification for the charges and the charges were approved and prescribed by the BPA and the Department od Transport in 2012.Private car park management is necessary. It prevents abuse of private land and there is a great deal of commercial justification for private car park management as it helps to combat abuse and ensures a reasonable turnover of vehicles in the car park in order to ensure that the optimum amount of motorists can visit a site. If ParkingEye could not make a profit and operate as a business it would not be able to provide this commercially justifiable and necessary service to landholders.Here ParkingEye has focused on it's losses, although as noted above, there is also significant losses incurred by the landholder.The average payment by motorists who have been issued with a Parking Charge by ParkingEye is circa £63. Circa 84% of this payment (circa £53) covers ParkingEye's costs.
then goes on about where this info came from and that it is publicly available and about reduced rates and that the BPA approved the amount of £100 etc
Annex
19/7/13 defendant argued that the parkinf charge was disproportionate to the loss incurred, Judge did not find this a persuasive argument.
23/7/13 defentdant using info provided from an online forum argued that their parking charges did not amount to a genunie pre-estimate of loss, were disproportionate; that there was no relevant contract between the defendant and ParkingEye; that there was no relevant contract between ParkingEye and the landholder;the ParkingEye's notice to keeper was non-compliant and that ParkingEye did not have the legal right to issue parking charges on private land. The defendant stated himself on the very same forum that 'Every point raised by myself (which included every loophole, law, and non compliance ever raised on [intenet forum named removed] was summarily dismissed by the judge.
31/7/13/defendant argued that the charge amounted to a penalty and that no contract had been offered and therefore no contract had been entered into..judge stated there was no defence to the claim and was therefore obliged to grant judgement as requested
1/8/13 defendants defence focused on ownership of the land and the unreasonableness of the charge. Again the Judge summararily dismissed all these arguments instead of finding that the amount of the charge was not unreasonable and does not amount to a penalty.
9/8/13 defendant (again using arguments gathered from online forums) argued that the signage on site was insufficient to bring the terms of the condtions of parking to the attention of the motorist, that the terms and conditions of parking were unreasonable and that the signage did not conform to BPA specifications. He stated that he did not drive the vehicle on the date in question. He stated that the contract formed between the motorist and ParkingEye/the landholder was doubtful and that no offer was communicated to the driver. The defendant stated that the parking charge was a penalty and that the sum claimed was not a pre-estimate of loss. He stated that the contract (which he had initially staed did not exist) was unfair as evidenced by the infair consumer terms act, he stated that parkingEye, not being the landholder had no claim. All the defendants assertations were dismissed, including the notion that any of the terms of the contract breached the unfair consumer terms act and the judge granted judgement in ParkingEyes favour
I am sure you get the message from all of this...sorry, i did not intend on it being so long. There were more case quotes listed, then them pointing to frequently asked questions and there answers and finally talking about POPLA.
So after all that (apologies!!!!) should i continue with my appeal or should i give in and pay like they are expecting me to? Please help, as i already said, this is my first time dealing with people like this and for someone like me it is scary.Thanks again in advance and sorry to have bored you all and been such a pain! Xx

[mystery1]

Re: Parking eye - (again it seems?)

http://parking-prankster.com/court-cases-2014.html

http://parking-prankster.com/court-cases-2013.html

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/...67&postcount=2 (seems like they have stopped updating it due to the large volume of wins for the motorist)

Adapt http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...-Appeal-Letter to suit and pay nothing. Search the forums and you'lll find quite a few wins.

M1