Tweet
ParkingEye HELP!!
Good evening All.
I could do with a little advice please. Early December our son moved to his new flat. We helped him move his personal effects to his new place 3 different cars on 3 different days. Little did we know ParkingEye are operating or a local company in a car park his front door opens on to. This is the first one . I will hopefully post photos but first my online reply to County court claim form. Would it be acceptable to send ? Time is of the essence !!
I have also just received in the post today 2 debt collection letters for the other 2 times we entered the car park. will need to research that too.
It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of
R******A.
It is admitted the vehicle entered an un-gated, empty, tarmaced
piece of land under invitation from the resident at the access
point on 02/12/2022 at 15:37 then exited at 16:00, in complete
darkness. After 22 minutes taken to unload.
Parking Charge notices were received mid January due to postal
strikes in December 2022.
I the registered keeper, deny Parking in HealthWorks Carpark.
The vehicle in question was being used to transport furniture and
personal effects to ADDRESS , after receiving the
keys from the landlords agent, to the property on the 01/12/2022
at 17:31. I have copies of the Tenancy agreement. This also proves
the residents change of addresses.
I deny the vehicle Parked. The definition of PARKED means;
That a vehicle is standing still, whether it is occupied or not,
for a short space of time and NOT for the purpose of loading or
unloading goods or picking up or dropping off passengers.
Therefore Unloading is not defined as parked.
I deny entering into a contract and do not accept there is a
contract , due to there not being an offer to provide a service
available for unloading to a residence. The contract that exists
is unachievable, and don't believe the land owner has suffered any
Genuine pre estimate of loss and would welcome proof of any loss
that has incurred.
Therefore I deny the vehicle needed authorisation, from
TENANT OF PRIVATE CLINIC or ParkingEye, or entered into a contract or breached
any contract, to unload. Therefore not liable for a Parking
Invoice.
ParkingEyes terms are Unfair. Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999
Regulation 5.A contractual term which has not been individually
negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the
requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in
the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to
the detriment of the consumer. So therefore not binding.
Furthermore; The only access to this residence is through as you
say Private land. The Carpark cannot be for Patrons use only,
whilst registered at HealthWorks, due to the fact there are at
least 7 other properties, residential second floor and commercial
ground floor, all with access backing on to the said private land.
Thus requiring Right of Access.
I question ParkingEyes right to issue tickets on the land, and I
require Parking Eye to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous,
signed & dated ,unredacted, contract with the landowner. I say
that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out
in the BPA Code of Practice and does not allow them to charge and
issue proceedings for this sum for this alleged contravention in
this car park. In order to refute this it will not be sufficient
for Parking Eye merely to supply a site agreement or witness
statement, as these do not show sufficient detail, such as the
restrictions, charges and revenue sharing arrangements agreed with
a landowner, and may well be signed by a non-landholder such as
another agent. In order to comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA Code
of Practice, a non-landowner private parking company must have a
specifically-worded contract with the landowner – not merely an
agreement with a non-landholder managing agent – otherwise there
is no authority. I don't believe ANY landowner would ignore the
Right of Access of their neighbours.
On further investigation I deny your signage is clear. I have
photographic evidence to substantiate. The area is not clearly
defined by lines/markings. Nor has it a barrier or gate to define
private property.
The Patrons only sign which at the time was not clear due to poor
weather conditions, poor light and narrow entry, which only
recently after December 6th had an extremely bright LED light
installed on top. This sign is setback from the area where the
vehicle was unloading, thus not in the area behind the signage but
in fact in front, by the communal bin area.
The resident of ADDRESS who is Disabled, statmented with
ADHD, needed assistance to transport his goods and
chattels in a secure environment. This has caused untold stress
due to this unfair legal action. Under the 1974 Health and Safety
Act, section 2, the land owner/ management has a duty of care to
all persons entering this land. Additionally there is a deep
pothole where the manhole cover is which is a Major Trip Hazard.
I deny the vehicle was in fact on Private property
The signage is misleading and contradictory.
After finding the signage showing the terms and conditions
attached to the opposite building, it is in fact behind a
soil pipe and is in an unlit area, thus making it illegible.
The fine print on the Terms and conditions are so small anybody
who needs reading glasses would struggle.
After closer inspection, in daylight and reading glasses, the
Claimant calls it a carpark but it has no bays nor Yellow
lines/hatchings which as the signage says you must park in bays
and not park in hatching. Therefore, Any vehicle parked in this
area of land is subject to breaking the terms and conditions
including those registered at HeathWorks and therefore would make
the area a complete no parking zone/May Not Park Here. Which is
incompatible with Contractual Law.
The Claimant has provided no evidence in pre action correspondence
or otherwise, that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant
avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the
Defendant in these proceedings under the provisions set out by the
statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 POFA.
Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of
Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that;
There was a relevant obligation either by way of a breach of
contract, trespass or other torte; and that it has followed the
required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer
liability from the driver to registered keeper.
It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the
relevant statutory requirements.
To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such
presumption exists, the Defendant expressly denies that there is
any such presumption in law that the keeper is the driver.
Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged
to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the
intention of parliament they would have made such requirements
part of POFA , which makes no such provision in the alternative ,
an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act
1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of
drivers only in strictly limited circumstances , where a criminal
offence has been committed. Those provisions do NOT apply to this
matter.
I contend it is wholly unreasonable to rely on CCTV/ANPR, unfit
signs and unfair, unachievable contracts, in an attempt to profit
by charging a disproportionate sum where no loss has been caused.
I put Parking Eye to strict proof to justify that their charge,
under the circumstances described.
Yours Sincerely Mr *******
I could do with a little advice please. Early December our son moved to his new flat. We helped him move his personal effects to his new place 3 different cars on 3 different days. Little did we know ParkingEye are operating or a local company in a car park his front door opens on to. This is the first one . I will hopefully post photos but first my online reply to County court claim form. Would it be acceptable to send ? Time is of the essence !!
I have also just received in the post today 2 debt collection letters for the other 2 times we entered the car park. will need to research that too.
It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of
R******A.
It is admitted the vehicle entered an un-gated, empty, tarmaced
piece of land under invitation from the resident at the access
point on 02/12/2022 at 15:37 then exited at 16:00, in complete
darkness. After 22 minutes taken to unload.
Parking Charge notices were received mid January due to postal
strikes in December 2022.
I the registered keeper, deny Parking in HealthWorks Carpark.
The vehicle in question was being used to transport furniture and
personal effects to ADDRESS , after receiving the
keys from the landlords agent, to the property on the 01/12/2022
at 17:31. I have copies of the Tenancy agreement. This also proves
the residents change of addresses.
I deny the vehicle Parked. The definition of PARKED means;
That a vehicle is standing still, whether it is occupied or not,
for a short space of time and NOT for the purpose of loading or
unloading goods or picking up or dropping off passengers.
Therefore Unloading is not defined as parked.
I deny entering into a contract and do not accept there is a
contract , due to there not being an offer to provide a service
available for unloading to a residence. The contract that exists
is unachievable, and don't believe the land owner has suffered any
Genuine pre estimate of loss and would welcome proof of any loss
that has incurred.
Therefore I deny the vehicle needed authorisation, from
TENANT OF PRIVATE CLINIC or ParkingEye, or entered into a contract or breached
any contract, to unload. Therefore not liable for a Parking
Invoice.
ParkingEyes terms are Unfair. Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999
Regulation 5.A contractual term which has not been individually
negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the
requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in
the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to
the detriment of the consumer. So therefore not binding.
Furthermore; The only access to this residence is through as you
say Private land. The Carpark cannot be for Patrons use only,
whilst registered at HealthWorks, due to the fact there are at
least 7 other properties, residential second floor and commercial
ground floor, all with access backing on to the said private land.
Thus requiring Right of Access.
I question ParkingEyes right to issue tickets on the land, and I
require Parking Eye to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous,
signed & dated ,unredacted, contract with the landowner. I say
that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out
in the BPA Code of Practice and does not allow them to charge and
issue proceedings for this sum for this alleged contravention in
this car park. In order to refute this it will not be sufficient
for Parking Eye merely to supply a site agreement or witness
statement, as these do not show sufficient detail, such as the
restrictions, charges and revenue sharing arrangements agreed with
a landowner, and may well be signed by a non-landholder such as
another agent. In order to comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA Code
of Practice, a non-landowner private parking company must have a
specifically-worded contract with the landowner – not merely an
agreement with a non-landholder managing agent – otherwise there
is no authority. I don't believe ANY landowner would ignore the
Right of Access of their neighbours.
On further investigation I deny your signage is clear. I have
photographic evidence to substantiate. The area is not clearly
defined by lines/markings. Nor has it a barrier or gate to define
private property.
The Patrons only sign which at the time was not clear due to poor
weather conditions, poor light and narrow entry, which only
recently after December 6th had an extremely bright LED light
installed on top. This sign is setback from the area where the
vehicle was unloading, thus not in the area behind the signage but
in fact in front, by the communal bin area.
The resident of ADDRESS who is Disabled, statmented with
ADHD, needed assistance to transport his goods and
chattels in a secure environment. This has caused untold stress
due to this unfair legal action. Under the 1974 Health and Safety
Act, section 2, the land owner/ management has a duty of care to
all persons entering this land. Additionally there is a deep
pothole where the manhole cover is which is a Major Trip Hazard.
I deny the vehicle was in fact on Private property
The signage is misleading and contradictory.
After finding the signage showing the terms and conditions
attached to the opposite building, it is in fact behind a
soil pipe and is in an unlit area, thus making it illegible.
The fine print on the Terms and conditions are so small anybody
who needs reading glasses would struggle.
After closer inspection, in daylight and reading glasses, the
Claimant calls it a carpark but it has no bays nor Yellow
lines/hatchings which as the signage says you must park in bays
and not park in hatching. Therefore, Any vehicle parked in this
area of land is subject to breaking the terms and conditions
including those registered at HeathWorks and therefore would make
the area a complete no parking zone/May Not Park Here. Which is
incompatible with Contractual Law.
The Claimant has provided no evidence in pre action correspondence
or otherwise, that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant
avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the
Defendant in these proceedings under the provisions set out by the
statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 POFA.
Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of
Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that;
There was a relevant obligation either by way of a breach of
contract, trespass or other torte; and that it has followed the
required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer
liability from the driver to registered keeper.
It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the
relevant statutory requirements.
To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such
presumption exists, the Defendant expressly denies that there is
any such presumption in law that the keeper is the driver.
Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged
to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the
intention of parliament they would have made such requirements
part of POFA , which makes no such provision in the alternative ,
an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act
1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of
drivers only in strictly limited circumstances , where a criminal
offence has been committed. Those provisions do NOT apply to this
matter.
I contend it is wholly unreasonable to rely on CCTV/ANPR, unfit
signs and unfair, unachievable contracts, in an attempt to profit
by charging a disproportionate sum where no loss has been caused.
I put Parking Eye to strict proof to justify that their charge,
under the circumstances described.
Yours Sincerely Mr *******
Comment