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
    Sedated
    Parking Eye parking charge notice clarification
    • #1
    • 22nd Jul 12, 4:21 PM
    Parking Eye parking charge notice clarification 22nd Jul 12 at 4:21 PM
    Our car overstayed by 38 minutes in a Parking Eye controlled car park. We have received a parking charge notice. From other posts on this forum, are we correct in thinking that this charge is unenforceable?

    We did not notice any signs although have been back and seen they are present. We did not get close enough to read the wording but have seen similar signs since in another car park by another company which state that if you overstay the max allowed you agree to pay the charge of 70 in this case. If the Parking Eye signs had a similar wording, stating that you agree to pay a charge if overstaying, then can you be made to pay the charge?


Page 1
  • BASFORDLAD
    • #2
    • 22nd Jul 12, 4:25 PM
    • #2
    • 22nd Jul 12, 4:25 PM
    No just ignore it.

    How did ur car overstay? Is it herbie?
  • taffy056
    • #3
    • 22nd Jul 12, 4:26 PM
    • #3
    • 22nd Jul 12, 4:26 PM
    The only way you can be made to pay this, is if they take you to court and you lose. The chances of that happening are minuscule.

    For 2011
    Fake tickets issued: 1,800,000
    Small claims: 845
    Actual claims before a judge: 49
    Claims won by PPCs: 24
    Chances of going to court: 36,000-1
    Chances of losing in court : 72,000-1

    So the ignore advice is the best option for you, unless you get signed and stamped court papers.
  • Stephen Leak
    • #4
    • 22nd Jul 12, 4:51 PM
    • #4
    • 22nd Jul 12, 4:51 PM
    You are correct.

    Firstly, the legal stuff.

    Only councils, the police, train operators and Transport for London can impose legally enforceable fines or penalties. A private company or individual can't. A private parking company (PPC) call their tickets “Parking Charge Notices”, not “Penalty Charge Notices”. In law, they’re called “speculative invoices”.


    Any warning signs are usually so badly positioned and worded, that they won’t have created a fair and legally binding deemed contract between the car park owner and a driver entering the car park in the first place. See The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997 and Excel Parking Services vs. Cutts, Stockport, 2011.

    All the car park owner (CPO) can claim from a driver in damages for any alleged breach of any alleged contract is what they’ve lost as a result. If it’s in a free car park or the driver paid, this is 0.00. Demanding more has been judged to be unreasonable and therefore an unfair contract penalty under the terms of The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997, which is not legally enforceable. See Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd. vs. New Garage & Motor Co. Ltd., House of Lords, 1914 and countless cases since.

    There are also now recent landmark court cases, VCS Parking Control vs. Ronald Ibbotson, S!!!!horpe, 2012, HM Revenue & Customs vs. VCS Parking Control, Lower Tax Tribunal, 2012 and VCS Parking Control vs. HM Revenue & Customs (Appeal), Upper Tax Tribunal, 2012. In these cases, the judges ruled that only the car park owner can take drivers to court. The Upper Tax Tribunal is a court of record, equivalent to the High Court, and therefore its judgement sets a legal precedent.

    What should I do now?


    We don’t condone not paying or overstaying in a pay car park. If you owe the CPO the original charge, then you ought to write to the CPO, offering this in “full and final settlement”. In any event, you should write to the CPO, advising them that they are "jointly and severally liable" for the actions of their agents, the PPC, and that any further actions by either of them would be regarded as harassment under the terms of The Protection from Harassment Act 1997. This ought to make the CPO call off the PPC and, hopefully, realise the potential cost of doing business with a PPC.

    Don’t appeal to the PPC. They always reject them. What’s in it for them to let anyone off? Actually, there is something in it for them: information. They need to know the identity of the driver of the vehicle involved at the time, because that’s who the alleged contract was with. If they don’t know who the driver was, they have to make do with harassing the registered keeper.

    With windscreen notices, an appeal letter will tell them your name and address, and maybe who was driving at the time. If they don’t know who the driver was, they have to buy the details of registered keeper from the DVLA. With postal notices, they’ve had to do this already. But they still need to know the identity of the driver.

    They sometimes say that they have the right to ask for this information. This doesn’t mean that you have to tell them.

    However, even if you’ve written and told them who the driver was, it just means that they can now harass the driver instead of harassing the registered keeper.

    How will they do this to me?

    The PPC, then a debt collector and then a solicitor will send you a series of letters. The debt collector and solicitor are usually also the PPC, but using different headed paper. These letters will threaten you with every kind of financial and legal unpleasantness imaginable to intimidate you into paying.


    But, they can't actually do anything, for the same reason that a blackmailer can't take anyone who didn’t pay them to court.

    What should I do then?

    Continue to ignore everything you get from the PPC and their aliases. It does seem odd to deal with something like this by ignoring it. Eventually, they will run out of empty threats and stop throwing good money after bad.
  • Sedated
    • #5
    • 22nd Jul 12, 5:03 PM
    • #5
    • 22nd Jul 12, 5:03 PM
    Thanks everyone
    So wording on a sign saying to the effect of ... I agree to pay a penalty/charge of ??? if I overstay the alloted time, is unenforcable even though its there for all who park there to read?
  • ManxRed
    • #6
    • 22nd Jul 12, 5:18 PM
    • #6
    • 22nd Jul 12, 5:18 PM
    Well, agreeing to pay a penalty is moot, as private companies cannot legally enforce penalties. Whether a 'charge' would stand up then I suspect it would fail on grounds of reasonableness.

    In other words, would you have willingy parked there and accepted the charge of 75 for staying longer than the limit? I suspect not, and I suspect a judge would agree.

    The fact that the charge purely exists to be paid by 'overstayers' indicates straight away that it is punitive in nature, and therefore a penalty.

    This is before we even get to the killer issue of whether the PPC actually owns (or has ownership rights - in other words a lessee) the land in question.

    In a recent ruling in the Upper Tax Tribunal (which is binding on lower courts) a judge ruled that unless a PPC is actually the landowner (or equivalent) then they have no right to offer parking and form a contract with drivers in the first place, and hence cannot pursue charges in respect of that contract themselves.

    Only the landowner could do it.

    So yes, ignore this ticket and all the follow up letters.
    Je Suis Cecil.
  • Stephen Leak
    • #7
    • 22nd Jul 12, 6:03 PM
    • #7
    • 22nd Jul 12, 6:03 PM
    Thanks everyone
    So wording on a sign saying to the effect of ... I agree to pay a penalty/charge of ??? if I overstay the alloted time, is unenforcable even though its there for all who park there to read?
    Originally posted by Sedated
    You're correct again.

    The signs should be good enough for a driver to read, including any "small print", as they drive past in a car, in order to create a fair and legally binding contract.

    Even if we assume that they do, a "parking charge" of 75 has been judged to be unreasonable and therefore an unfair contract penalty. It's the usual reason why the few PPCs, who have "tried it on" in court, have lost.

    The last time PE did this they lost the case for this reason. They also lost 4607.20 in claimed "charges" and legal costs.
    Last edited by Stephen Leak; 22-07-2012 at 6:08 PM.
  • bondy lad
    • #8
    • 22nd Jul 12, 8:16 PM
    • #8
    • 22nd Jul 12, 8:16 PM
    sedated,, you need to worry not and read the stickies,, you have been issued with a FAKE ticket,,its not genuine,not legally enforceable,, you have a PARKING charge notice (you have this)=fake/unenforceable invoice,,the real deal is called a PENALTY charge notice (you do not have this)=only issued by police/traffic warden and must be paid,so ignore full stop absolutely everything you recieve on or on behalf of them as all part of the scam, jobs a real good un, eh, now, read those stickies.
    • Kite2010
    • By Kite2010 22nd Jul 12, 9:25 PM
    • 3,917 Posts
    • 3,316 Thanks
    Kite2010
    • #9
    • 22nd Jul 12, 9:25 PM
    • #9
    • 22nd Jul 12, 9:25 PM
    Ignore Parking Spy, and ignore the shop which is foolish enough to employ them.

    If you have someone on order, cancel it saying "sorry I don't have the money anymore, I need to pay for the privilege of overstaying in your car-park when I was placing the order", the sooner the stores lose out by employing parasities the better
  • Sedated
    A massive thanks to everyone who's replied. Appreciated.

    Just waiting for the intimidation to start
  • BASFORDLAD
    A massive thanks to everyone who's replied. Appreciated.

    Just waiting for the intimidation to start
    Originally posted by Sedated
    Or prehaps rephrase that?

    Waiting to play snap with the letters you get
    For everthing else there's mastercard.
    For clampers there's Barclaycard.
  • SodG24
    A massive thanks to everyone who's replied. Appreciated.

    Just waiting for the intimidation to start
    Originally posted by Sedated
    It's a mindset - instead of being intimidated see it as a game. I enjoyed getting my junk mail from G24. Change your mindset and enjoy the ride
  • HardWorker2010
    It's a mindset - instead of being intimidated see it as a game. I enjoyed getting my junk mail from G24. Change your mindset and enjoy the ride
    Originally posted by SodG24
    Same here with the rubbish from CP Plus and their follow on morons DR+/Zenith Collections. Although I am missing their letters - it's been weeks now.... perhaps they don't want to waste any more money trying to extort money from someone who obviously knows it's a scam.
  • Stephen Leak
    A massive thanks to everyone who's replied. Appreciated.

    Just waiting for the intimidation to start
    Originally posted by Sedated
    Fixed that for you.
  • jamie220
    Parking Charge Notices
    I have read many of the interesting posts on this site giving advice not to pay private parking charge notices from Parking Eye.

    I recently received such a notice from Parking Eye following my over stay at a motorway services carpark.

    Enclosed with the notice from Parking Eye was confirmation of a change in the law from 01 Oct 2012 which now means that Car Park Operators may pursue registered vehicle keepers if they do not disclose driver details within 28 days.

    Can anyone advise if Parking Eye have correctly interpreted this change in the law and if this has any bearing on whether or not I should ignore this notice? I was both the driver and registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the over stay.
  • ManxRed
    Thye've misrepresented it very slightly by stating that the only options available to the registered keeper is to name the driver or pay up. Which is complete hogwash. You could of course simply ignore everything.

    Which would be my recommendation.
    Je Suis Cecil.
  • Coupon-mad
    I have read many of the interesting posts on this site giving advice not to pay private parking charge notices from Parking Eye.

    I recently received such a notice from Parking Eye following my over stay at a motorway services carpark.

    Enclosed with the notice from Parking Eye was confirmation of a change in the law from 01 Oct 2012 which now means that Car Park Operators may pursue registered vehicle keepers if they do not disclose driver details within 28 days.

    Can anyone advise if Parking Eye have correctly interpreted this change in the law and if this has any bearing on whether or not I should ignore this notice? I was both the driver and registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the over stay.
    Originally posted by jamie220



    If you read some other recent threads here you will see that people have posted a pic of that enclosure. It's been referred to the DVLA who do not have a problem with it. I find it a bit misleading but not terrible, there are worse things on these fake tickets and websites!

    It has no bearing on whether you should ignore the fake PCN. Here's a summary:

    As far as private parking ticket scams are concerned, for a vehicle where you or family are the registered keeper*:

    Any fake PCN issued for an incident up until 30th Sept 2012 = IGNORE IT.

    Any fake PCN issued for an incident from 1st October 2012 onwards:

    - if you were parked in Scotland or NI = IGNORE IT.

    - if your 'ticket' is from a firm who are NOT members of the BPA AOS = IGNORE IT.

    - if your 'ticket' is from an AOS member and the incident was in England/Wales, there are 2 choices:

    a) IGNORE IT, as ever, playing snap with the threatograms that match our sticky thread 'PPC letter chains' (near the top of this parking forum, there's a thread with a link to the archive letters that PPCs have been known to send),

    or

    b) Appeal it with help from here in how to word it, and insist on a referral to the POPLA appeals service if it's not cancelled. Costs the PPC 32 plus, costs you nothing, it's not binding on you but it is binding on the PPC. IF you do not win your appeal then revert to ignore mode. This option is for those who feel they want to fight back, cost the PPC money and test the POPLA system whilst also getting their PPC's tactics scrutinised; start by reading threads about POPLA.

    Finally, if anyone gets any fake PCN anywhere in the UK in a retail, cinema, fast food or Supermarket car park then COMPLAIN IN WRITING to the CEO of the company on site if you were a customer. Do not appeal to them, complain about this protection racket against their paying ex-customers.

    HTH





    * it would be different for hire/lease/company cars (unless the OP owns the company) as the driver could find the fake PCN paid for them! Here is a thread about what to do for newbies who this applies to.
    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.

  • Biffy64
    Hi Everyone

    I just wanted to share my parking experiences, I picked up a couple of tickets (2 motorway services) since the laws changed in october. Parking eye sent me the usual PCN rubbish (x4) which i have ignored.
    I will of course update this as and when PE bother to chase the amounts due or not as the case may be?
  • Coupon-mad
    Ignore or appeal, those are the choices now there is POPLA (Eng/Wales only).

    Parking Eye have actually folded when we've seen them made aware that the motorist wants to go to POPLA at 27 plus VAT per fake PCN (to be stumped up by the PPC of course, regardless of outcome, and without the decision even being binding on the driver).

    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.

  • Sarah_gregs
    Parking eye with BPA & HPC
    Hi!
    I know that everyone is saying to ignore all letters from parking eye, but looking over past posts, people are saying not to ignore the ones with HPC. Is this true? I have to pay by Sunday before the amount goes up, so I thought I'd ask!
    I stupidly parked in a poly clinic car park, not noticing the signs.
    Do I still have the right to ignore? Or because it is part of the hospital parking charter do I HAVE TO pay it??

    Like I say, I have read all threads and posts, but I noticed some saying ignore unless it is HPC.

    THANKS!
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

250Posts Today

1,152Users online

Martin's Twitter