Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    smithy2121
    Parking Eye Court Action
    • #1
    • 27th Mar 11, 9:49 PM
    Parking Eye Court Action 27th Mar 11 at 9:49 PM
    Hi,

    I posted this on another page but think it may be sensible to start it as a new thread.

    I parked in a car park in October which had just been taken over by Parking Eye. It was on a Sunday and the cost of the car park was Ł5 for the day. I did not realise I had to pay as I was in a rush and had never had to pay previously on entering the car park. I did the exact same thing 2 weeks later as I had not received any correspondence from Parking Eye and was unaware I could not park for free.

    I then received 2 letters from Parking Eye requesting payment of Ł60 with another Ł60 on top of this if I did not pay within 14 days. I looked on this website as well as others and was happy to see that nobody ever gets taken to court. The advice on the BBC Watchdog site also backed this up so I ignored the letters. I then received another 4 letters which I was expecting (as explained elsewhere on this site) so did not worry and ignored again.

    I have now been sent a court summons from Northampton County Court saying I now owe the amount claimed + court fees and solicitors costs with a response pack. This gives me 5 options:

    Admit the amount I owe
    Admit part of the amount I owe
    Dispute the whole claim
    Request 28 days to respond to the claim
    Do Nothing

    I am as shocked as everybody else and I am still panicking a little, my mum thinks I should just pay it as I do not want to get a CCJ but I want to fight it.

    Please can this be taken seriously and somebody give me some real advice? I can give more details if needed and also prove what I have been sent from the court.

    Thank you.
Page 15
  • ripped off driver
    This "approach" needs to be reported to the court asap. It is completely unacceptable for one side in an ongoing court case to contact the other in an intimidatory fashion as they have done. The court will most certainly have something to say of this when you inform them as you must. Especially when the party making the intimidatory approach is a firm of solicitors and the other party is a litigant in person.

    Pannone, if you are reading this which you clearly are, then you must realise that this was a very dumb act. Surely you are aware that each case in the county court turns on its own facts and no decision sets a precedent for any other case. if you have sought to misrepresent this as appears the case then you have to hope for a very understanding judge.
    Last edited by ripped off driver; 24-11-2011 at 7:04 PM.
  • notts_phil
    You need to make the judge fully aware of this and that you haven't ignored them at all. It is important that you not bullied over this!!
  • notts_phil
    I am starting to think our pet troll is an employee of Pannone
  • Coupon-mad
    OLD THREAD - STOP READING!!

    OLD THREAD - STOP READING!!

    OLD THREAD - STOP READING!!

    OLD THREAD - STOP READING!!

    Please wise up and click one click to page one to see CURRENT threads instead which tell you how to appeal and win.

    PARKING EYE NOW SUE IGNORERS ROUTINELY, EVERY DAY, SO DO NOT IGNORE A PARKING EYE FAKE PCN IN ENGLAND/WALES.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 24-03-2014 at 1:01 AM.
    PCN in a private car park in England/Wales? DON'T PAY IT BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    USE THE 'FORUM JUMP' ON RIGHT, GO TO THE PARKING TICKETS FORUM. READ THE 'NEWBIES' THREAD.
    Do NOT read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

  • TrickyWicky
    No its their new technique to protect their revenue. They're trying to set some sort of new standard in PPC desperation. The thing is, if this really is legitimate and they really won that amount in that other case then this will have serious implications for other PPCs and its going to scare the **** out of many motorists who would otherwise ignore postal correspondance.

    What seems odd to me about all of this is that there doesn't seem to be any independent confirmation of this case and the outcome. I hope its all a load of cobblers myself as I take the mick routinely at a few local PPC car parks (never got a ticket yet).
  • Sirdan
    No its their new technique to protect their revenue. They're trying to set some sort of new standard in PPC desperation. The thing is, if this really is legitimate and they really won that amount in that other case then this will have serious implications for other PPCs and its going to scare the **** out of many motorists who would otherwise ignore postal correspondance.

    What seems odd to me about all of this is that there doesn't seem to be any independent confirmation of this case and the outcome. I hope its all a load of cobblers myself as I take the mick routinely at a few local PPC car parks (never got a ticket yet).
    Originally posted by TrickyWicky
    According to a respected regular on Pepipoo the Court have confirmed the case went ahead and PE/Panone were represented by Counsel ...no other details though.
  • Coupon-mad
    OLD THREAD - STOP READING!!

    OLD THREAD - STOP READING!!

    OLD THREAD - STOP READING!!

    OLD THREAD - STOP READING!!

    Please wise up and click one click to page one to see CURRENT threads instead which tell you how to appeal and win.

    PARKING EYE NOW SUE IGNORERS ROUTINELY, EVERY DAY, SO DO NOT IGNORE A PARKING EYE FAKE PCN IN ENGLAND/WALES.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 24-03-2014 at 1:01 AM.
    PCN in a private car park in England/Wales? DON'T PAY IT BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    USE THE 'FORUM JUMP' ON RIGHT, GO TO THE PARKING TICKETS FORUM. READ THE 'NEWBIES' THREAD.
    Do NOT read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

  • Sirdan
    Everything points towards the Hossain case being a set-up, partly because a genuine poster would have gone straight back on pepipoo and screamed 'help'! if they had lost like that after posting there & getting a defence.

    Also because of the timing - July till now is a VERY short time to get to Court. It's a strange fast-track case with a ridiculous amount of costs claimed.

    Now this can all be achieved by a PPC with a set-up 'patsy' prepared to go through a sham Small Claim case - like some sort of show-trial! BAsically although judgment may have been given, the patsy never has to pay anything and the PPC could probably have already agreed to pay a certain sum to the barrister for showing up.

    I think the Court has been hoodwinked here - this is NOT what Courts are for, to be used as a method of advertising the 'PPC cause' and scare-tactics to other newbies. It's very cheap advertising for Parking Eye if this is what they have done. But they've been sussed.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    I think that is a distinct possibility...but the evidence is only circumstantial...the most telling "pointer" is the PPC poster's staunch refusal to post any actual details plus their assertion that Alexis had provided a "defence bundle" which he has no recollection of doing ..I think we know who to believe there !
  • TrickyWicky
    Everything points towards the Hossain case being a set-up, partly because a genuine poster would have gone straight back on pepipoo and screamed 'help'! if they had lost like that after posting there & getting a defence. He also did not post just before the Court case did he - whereas real posters do ask for last-minute tips & advice, usually the day before.

    Also because of the timing - July till now is a VERY short time to get to Court. It's a strange fast-track case with a ridiculous amount of costs claimed.

    Now this can all be achieved by a PPC with a set-up 'patsy' prepared to go through a sham Small Claim case - like some sort of show-trial! If that's the case then although judgment may have been given, the patsy never has to pay anything - the PPC just 'says' that it has been settled. And any PPC trying this trick would probably have already agreed to pay a certain sum to the barrister for showing up. If the Court process involves payment being made through the Court then the 'players' here just pass the money around like pass the parcel. Easy-peasy.

    I think the Court has been hoodwinked here - this is NOT what Courts are for, to be used as a method of advertising the 'PPC cause' and as shock-tactics to other newbies on these forums. It's very cheap 'advertising' for Parking Eye if this is what they have done. But they've been sussed.

    If anyone ever did lose a PPC case GENUINELY with outrageous costs like that then obviously it would be a no-brainer that you would appeal the decision!
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    I was thinking that earlier today myself but didn't want to post it as I thought i'd get accused of being a conspiracist. I have to agree with you though, I think this is almost certainly whats gone on as there doesn't seem to be any logic to the defendant. All we know is he turned up and PE won the case and instead of the defendant posting about it we're seeing the trolls bragging about it.

    I just hope it doesn't spur on a new wave of legitimate claims by the other PPCs who are taken in by it.
  • ripped off driver
    Everything about this case screams set-up,or at the very least extreme cherry picking that will have no implication or relevance for any other case, even if it was setting a precedent which it is not. Parking in front of a loading bay thereby presumably preventing the company from doing business, obtaining multiple invoices - if you wanted to design a pet case this would be how you would do it.

    However much Parking Eye try to use the case to spread FUD, which is pretty inevitable whether the case is genuine or not, the fact is that large scale litigation is simply not practicable or cost effective. Now if Parking Eye was able to get a decision in a court of record on a more typical invoice situation - staying 10 minutes over some arbitrary limit imposed by unreadable signs etc - this would be newsworthy and dangerous. As it is Parking Eye is simply trying too hard and it all sparks of desperation. What kind of company would send trolls to consumer boards to try to trumpet a court case? Perhaps the same one that would stoop to setting up bogus online forums that try to pretend that their invoices are 100% enforcable.
  • Sirdan
    I was thinking that earlier today myself but didn't want to post it as I thought i'd get accused of being a conspiracist. I have to agree with you though, I think this is almost certainly whats gone on as there doesn't seem to be any logic to the defendant. All we know is he turned up and PE won the case and instead of the defendant posting about it we're seeing the trolls bragging about it.

    I just hope it doesn't spur on a new wave of legitimate claims by the other PPCs who are taken in by it.
    Originally posted by TrickyWicky

    Several references in his Twitter feed on 13th July when he claims to have received the Claim ...looking at the rest of what is there I don't think the defendant has the acumen to fake that ..and even if he did turn up what did he actually use in defence ..not much would be my guess..doesn't strike me as exactly Perry Mason or Michael Mansfield.

    It is often said on forums like these that defended claims almost always lose ...but what is meant is that well defended claims almost always lose.

    There is a serious inequality of arms inherent in the Civil jurisdiction in that there is no legal aid so Joe Public can at best afford a Solicitor whereas his opponent has the services of a Barrister .. taking into consideration the costs implications if Joe Public loses how fair is that ???
  • Inflatable Armadillo
    Several things strike me about this case.

    Firstly, the defendant could just be a bit of a numpty who has made a complete mess of things, not asked for advice or got poor advice from other source, possibly even a qualified legal one (as we know many of them don't understand the PPC modus operandi sufficiently well), and cocked the whole thing up!

    If he is a patsy, which is also a credible call given our experiences, then do Pannone know that he is a patsy? If Parking Eye are willing to put forward a patsy, surely they would not tell Pannone that is what he is and this might be a trick to try and convince Pannone of their credibility? If Pannone did know it was a set-up well, that could land them in a whole heap of trouble.

    The final issue is again about Pannone... people keep posting they are a credible company (and I have looked at their website and can see why) but maybe that opinion is out of date. We have no idea if Pannone are struggling for work or indeed if it is as simple as one of the partners goes yachting with one of the directors at Parking Eye and this is the result. It is odd though that they are getting involved!
  • bargepole
    I suspect that the sequence of events may be something like this:

    1) Punter receives multiple PPC tickets in same location
    2) Following advice on here or elsewhere, he ignores all correspondence
    3) PPC decides sum involved is large enough to risk a punt in Court
    4) Court claim issued, punter gets defence statement from trusted source
    5) PPC don't back down, punter rocks up at Court armed with defence but no actual understanding of the legal issues involved
    6) PPC's brief makes a much better job of arguing their case
    7) Judge is more sympathetic to PPC argument, awards claim, and exceptionally high costs in this case
    Speeding cases fought: 24 (3 of mine, 21 for others). Cases won: 20. Points on licence: 0. Private Parking Court Cases: Won 7. Lost 3. Adjourned 1.
  • Oopsadaisy
    IIRC when something similar happened in Scotland the PPC had been putting tickets and also warning letters etc on the car which continued to park in the private area.

    Thus the defendant had less chance of recourse to 'there was no valid contract formed'.

    Similarly if the 'charge' was 'Ł60 per hour' as opposed to 'free for 1 hr then Ł60 charge' there is more chance of it getting 'accepted'.

    Each case stands or falls on its own merit and nuances [imo].

    That's why there's no need for any panic, and the advice of ignore, ignore, ignore some more still stands imo.
  • Trebor16
    The final issue is again about Pannone... people keep posting they are a credible company (and I have looked at their website and can see why) but maybe that opinion is out of date. We have no idea if Pannone are struggling for work or indeed if it is as simple as one of the partners goes yachting with one of the directors at Parking Eye and this is the result. It is odd though that they are getting involved!
    Originally posted by Inflatable Armadillo
    Pannones get a mention on the solicitors from hell website in relation to how they have mishandled a persons estate who had lost capacity. In this one case the judge at the Court of Protection stated that the fees to be taken should not amount to anymore than Ł2500 per year but Pannones charges came to Ł26371, over ten times more. Just do a search on Hugh Jones, Pannones to see what I mean.
  • smigin
    OK, confession
    I got a letter from PE 3-4 weeks after I parked in Coniston where there was no notice about CCV but there was pay n display signage and machine. My wife bought the ticket, clearly displayed it on the dashboard (right way up as the previous year I was fined as I’d mistakenly put it the wrong way up).

    We returned to the car 10 to 15 mins before the ticket ran out and saw no notice on the car (the previous year’s incident they there was one – different company)

    A week or so ago we got a letter saying you did not buy a ticket so pay us Ł90 or Ł60 if within 14 days.

    OK, I should read here first… I emailed the saying NO we bought a ticket and it was clearly displayed.

    They have now just written back saying, unsurprisingly, your appeal has failed and you paid for ‘insufficient time’. So initially we didn’t buy a ticket but now we did but not a long enough one.

    I work for a large company and do a lot of contract work though I'm not a solicitor but I spoke to colleague today who is one who said…
    They maybe just invoices but that doesn’t mean they can’t be enforced however respond to them telling them about the contradiction, ask them for proof (the onus is on them) state you are not paying the invoice and referring them to Consumer Direct (a site on the web with a simple form to complete.

    That is the last I hope I’ll hear!
  • peter_the_piper
    Pannones get a mention on the solicitors from hell website in relation to how they have mishandled a persons estate who had lost capacity. In this one case the judge at the Court of Protection stated that the fees to be taken should not amount to anymore than Ł2500 per year but Pannones charges came to Ł26371, over ten times more. Just do a search on Hugh Jones, Pannones to see what I mean.
    Originally posted by Trebor16
    So, that they are in bed with Parking Eye should come as no surprise, they are out of the same mould.
    Millies gone back to Thailand, roll on Xmas.
  • Inflatable Armadillo
    OK, confession
    I got a letter from PE 3-4 weeks after I parked in Coniston where there was no notice about CCV but there was pay n display signage and machine. My wife bought the ticket, clearly displayed it on the dashboard (right way up as the previous year I was fined as I’d mistakenly put it the wrong way up).

    We returned to the car 10 to 15 mins before the ticket ran out and saw no notice on the car (the previous year’s incident they there was one – different company)

    A week or so ago we got a letter saying you did not buy a ticket so pay us Ł90 or Ł60 if within 14 days.

    OK, I should read here first… I emailed the saying NO we bought a ticket and it was clearly displayed.

    They have now just written back saying, unsurprisingly, your appeal has failed and you paid for ‘insufficient time’. So initially we didn’t buy a ticket but now we did but not a long enough one.

    I work for a large company and do a lot of contract work though I'm not a solicitor but I spoke to colleague today who is one who said…
    They maybe just invoices but that doesn’t mean they can’t be enforced however respond to them telling them about the contradiction, ask them for proof (the onus is on them) state you are not paying the invoice and referring them to Consumer Direct (a site on the web with a simple form to complete.

    That is the last I hope I’ll hear!
    Originally posted by smigin
    Now, they are going to write back to you either, stating your letter is rubbish and give you lots of reasons why you are wrong and they are right... all of it total hogwash OR they are just going to ignore you and keep you in the letter chain anyway. There is a slim chance it might work, but I rate you chances at less than 1%.

    Your colleague is right, invoices can be enforced, but only reasonable ones in the eyes of the court and contract law, the law they are relying on, only allows them to demonstrate and then claim actual damages... this is the bit they can't do, which means that in general terms for this board, we regard and tell people they are in effect unenforceable.
  • Coupon-mad
    OLD THREAD - STOP READING!!

    OLD THREAD - STOP READING!!

    OLD THREAD - STOP READING!!

    OLD THREAD - STOP READING!!

    Please wise up and click one click to page one to see CURRENT threads instead which tell you how to appeal and win.

    PARKING EYE NOW SUE IGNORERS ROUTINELY, EVERY DAY, SO DO NOT IGNORE A PARKING EYE FAKE PCN IN ENGLAND/WALES.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 24-03-2014 at 1:01 AM.
    PCN in a private car park in England/Wales? DON'T PAY IT BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    USE THE 'FORUM JUMP' ON RIGHT, GO TO THE PARKING TICKETS FORUM. READ THE 'NEWBIES' THREAD.
    Do NOT read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

  • smithy2121
    Sorry but why do you think this thread should have died a death a long time ago? The first case where Parking Eye have taken somebody to court and you think we should have just swept this under the carpet so nobody can see that it happened? I understand it does not need to be bumped up by new posters making a 'confession' but I know for a fact people are following my case on this forum and it should not have died a death a long time ago.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim's to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

4,338Posts Today

8,227Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Thanks to @CBBC_Hacker for sending us our own Hacker, baby MSE is smitten. Altight cocker. http://t.co/mdVVz56YHD

  • RT @MoneySavingExp: Hi folks - the site will be down from 10pm tonight until 8am tomorrow while we re-charge the batteries with some behind?

  • Uk dominating world long jump.Who'd have thought it. Kathy Cook's British 200m record about to go I think. #Beijing2015

  • Follow Martin