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
    • Der45
    • By Der45 12th Apr 17, 6:55 PM
    • 5Posts
    • 1Thanks
    Der45
    LBCCC despite I paid the parking fee!!!
    • #1
    • 12th Apr 17, 6:55 PM
    LBCCC despite I paid the parking fee!!! 12th Apr 17 at 6:55 PM
    Hi people

    To cut a long story short I´ll try to summarize all the letters I have received from Parking Eye so far and the status of the claim

    In May last year I parked in a services operated by Parking Eye. Before leaving the premises I paid the parking fee at the designated till point (WH Smith) and left. To my surprise a few days later I received a parking charge notice for £100.

    1. I appealed to Parking Eye explaining that I paid the parking fee before leaving the car park and I attached the receipt I was given at the store. Parking Eye rejected the appeal saying that their records showed that insufficient time was paid for on the date of the parking event.

    At that point I checked their website and discovered that they had charged me for short term parking (£5) instead of for the time my car had been there (long term £10 to 12). The person who served me at WH Smith mischarged me! As you can imagine I'm not willing to pay £100 for a mistake I didn't commit. I doesn't have anything to do with the charging procedure; that is entirely up to Parking Eye and the people working there. I only provided my registration number and if they committed a mistake it is not my fault.

    2. After that I appealed to POPLA explaining this and attaching the receipt. I also used other arguments according to the information I was able to find in the Internet at that moment. POPLA rejected my appeal stating that I should have known the applicable parking fee as there were signs all over the place and I overstayed the purchased time (I have to say that 90% of POPLA’s rationale is a defence of Parking Eye)

    3. On 02/03/17 I received a LBCCC from Parking Eye (typical template letter). On 10/03/17 I replied acknowledging their LBCCC and pointing out all the information that they were not providing to comply with the Practice Direction using the information I could find in this Forum

    4. On 17/03/17 I received another intimidating template letter stating that they were ready to start court proceedings. I replied on 27/03/17 explaining that their new letter did not provide the information I requested on 10/03.

    5. On 04/04 I received a new intimidating letter stating that their LBCCC is fully compliant with the Pre-Action Practice Direction, offering ADR (Small Claims Mediation Service) and a list of court cases (unrelated) favourable to Parking Eye and blah, blah, blah.

    So now I need help to reply to this new letter as it is not very clear for me what I have to do. My understanding is that now I should write my response to comply with the Practice Direction despite they are not complying with it. Am I right? I have no idea what I need to say in the response as I haven´t been able to find clear guidance or a template to do so. Can anybody help?

    I´m not going to give up with this as I find very unfair this situation despite I did nothing wrong.

    Any help would be appreciated.

    You do a great job here helping others! Thanks
Page 1
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th Apr 17, 7:55 PM
    • 52,911 Posts
    • 66,444 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #2
    • 12th Apr 17, 7:55 PM
    • #2
    • 12th Apr 17, 7:55 PM
    I would stop faffing about with a discussion about the Practice Direction that you will NOT win, you will not stop ParkingEye with that generic argument. No need to look for a template of the next step; do this from the heart in your own words.

    Instead, just email PE (no letters) and tell them you have now formally complained to the Services Finance Manager and to WH Smith's Head Office and believe this charge is about to be cancelled, therefore in the interests of justice they need to put it on hold for not less than 21 days. If they now proceed with a claim, under these circumstances, it will be proof of a wholly vexatious and punitive charge and unreasonable pre-action conduct.

    enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk PCN number in the subject line...

    Also point out that their Notice to Keeper failed to document the parking charges already paid, namely £5, so the charge of £100 on top of the £5 paid already is a total of £105 which in excess of the ceiling imposed under their Trade Bode (BPA) Code of Practice and also above the total recoverable sum set out in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

    And finish by pointing out that they have not acknowledged in any replies thus far, that the fault lay with WH Smith staff who input wrong information which was not a matter within your control and under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, conduct outside of the control of the consumer cannot result in a penalty.


    Then (urgently) Google the Services and send them an email complaint (no, there isn't a template - a complaint is personal).

    And Google WH Smith Head Office 'contact us' and do the same, also adding a complaint to their Facebook page and on Twitter, to make it embarrassingly public for WH Smith (this will make it more likely they might act quickly to resolve it).

    WORD THE COMPLAINTS VERY ASSERTIVELY. In both complaints, obviously give the ParkingEye PCN number 'xxxxxx/xxxxxx' in your heading/subject line, in the expectation that either the services or WHSmith will apologise and order this charge cancelled immediately.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 12-04-2017 at 8:02 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Der45
    • By Der45 26th Apr 17, 7:32 PM
    • 5 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Der45
    • #3
    • 26th Apr 17, 7:32 PM
    • #3
    • 26th Apr 17, 7:32 PM
    Thanks for the advice Coupon-mad

    I did as you recommended with the exception of complaining on Twitter and Facebook (I don´t have accounts) and yesterday I received the latest of the replies:

    1- WH Smith said it is a franchise store and I should address the complaint to the Services
    2- The Services Operations Manager asked me to send him the original correspondence challenging ParkingEye when I first received the PCN which I did. He contacted ParkingEye and they said I lost ParkingEye´s and POPLA´s appeal. They also informed the Operations Manager that they have offered me to pay a discounted amount of the charge. The Operations Manager said 'he is unable to help any further with this matter'
    3-ParkingEye has sent me a 'without prejudice' letter reducing the amount to £60 if paid within the next 14 days (I guess they have realised the £105 mistake they made and the ´ll try to use the discount in court if they finally issue court papers)

    So now I´m not very sure what´s the next step. Should I reply to the new 'without prejudice' letter or should I wait for the court papers if ParkingEye finally decides to take me to court?

    Thanks to all who help in this forum. You are doing a great job
    • The Slithy Tove
    • By The Slithy Tove 26th Apr 17, 7:38 PM
    • 3,229 Posts
    • 4,676 Thanks
    The Slithy Tove
    • #4
    • 26th Apr 17, 7:38 PM
    • #4
    • 26th Apr 17, 7:38 PM
    You owe them £5 only. That is all.

    I guess you have "outed" the driver in your appeals, which is a shame, as they will not have conformed to POFA for keeper liability.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 26th Apr 17, 7:50 PM
    • 7,668 Posts
    • 6,741 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #5
    • 26th Apr 17, 7:50 PM
    • #5
    • 26th Apr 17, 7:50 PM
    I doubt that OP owes them even £5,00. An automated process charged him/her £5 and that, imo, is all that he needs to pay.

    I am sure that all he needs to do is tell the judge the truth, and if he/she wins, ask for CPR27.14 (2)(g) costs. Perhaps there may even be a data breach claim here.

    Warn PE that, if they proceed, there may be financial consequences for them. Also, I would be inclined to register for Facebook and write some very harsh words indeed on it that will be seen by thousands.
    Last edited by The Deep; 26-04-2017 at 7:57 PM.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Der45
    • By Der45 9th Jan 18, 8:45 PM
    • 5 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Der45
    • #6
    • 9th Jan 18, 8:45 PM
    • #6
    • 9th Jan 18, 8:45 PM
    Hi guys

    It's been quite a long time since the last time I wrote about my problems with Parking Eye but the things haven't improved much. From April to July Parking Eye sent me around 5 letters with all sorts of copy-paste wording trying to trick me into paying. I replied to all letters and didn't pay. I didn't receive any letter from August to December.

    When I arrived home after my Christmas break I found 2 letters in the post from Equita dated 18/12 and 04/01. The first says the outstanding sum now is £160 and they could recommend ParkingEye to take legal action if I don't pay. The second says that as the matter remains unresolved I can contact them and "they may be able to accept a short term arrangement if I am unable to pay the full amount".

    I have been away for Christmas so I haven't been able to check my post and reply to the new letters but sending these new letters during Christmas after 5 months of the last communication show the "quality" of these companies. I have no doubt their only purpose is to harass and pester me and I'm not going to be tricked into paying but any help about what to do further would be welcome. Is there any way of stopping this harassment taking into account I didn't do anything wrong?

    Thanks a lot for your help
    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 9th Jan 18, 8:54 PM
    • 8,118 Posts
    • 8,508 Thanks
    pappa golf
    • #7
    • 9th Jan 18, 8:54 PM
    • #7
    • 9th Jan 18, 8:54 PM
    ok , you have had letters before court , several of them , PE have said they are going to take you to court , but yet , for some reason its now been passed to in house debt collection

    wonder why?

    did yo contact WH smiths? did you write back to PE

    and lastly
    CM , I like this: Also point out that their Notice to Keeper failed to document the parking charges already paid, namely £5, so the charge of £100 on top of the £5 paid already is a total of £105 which in excess of the ceiling imposed under their Trade Bode (BPA) Code of Practice and also above the total recoverable sum set out in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 9th Jan 18, 9:01 PM
    • 5,182 Posts
    • 3,647 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #8
    • 9th Jan 18, 9:01 PM
    • #8
    • 9th Jan 18, 9:01 PM
    These are debt collector's letters.

    Post #4 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread comprehensively explains how to deal with debt collector's letters.
    .
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 9th Jan 18, 9:13 PM
    • 6,750 Posts
    • 8,746 Thanks
    beamerguy
    • #9
    • 9th Jan 18, 9:13 PM
    • #9
    • 9th Jan 18, 9:13 PM
    You have to start thinking "scammers style"

    Pappa posed the question above "wonder why?"

    Equita is a simple debt collector probably in the
    next room to PE.

    As they say ... "recommend ParkingEye to take legal action"
    A short walk through the door will do it.

    Doubt a judge would approve of PE's bad behaviour
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Der45
    • By Der45 10th Jan 18, 7:34 PM
    • 5 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Der45
    Thanks guys.

    Yes I wrote to the Services manager and WH smith and they both refused to help me. I know making a complaint in their websites would probably have helped me but I don't have social media accounts.

    And yes I have written back to every single letter sent by PE. I have challenged them with several arguments, including the £105 which in excess of the ceiling imposed under their Trade Bode (BPA) Code of Practice but they simply don´t reply to my questions. They keep sending their intimidating copy-paste letters.

    It´s clear for me they are using !!!!!-style letters in the hope of subduing people´s resistance but they are not going to get a penny from me.

    I'll read the post mentioned by KeithP and I'll start putting pen to paper.

    Cheers
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 10th Jan 18, 10:42 PM
    • 52,911 Posts
    • 66,444 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    No pens or paper or postage for ParkingEye cases. Already said in an earlier reply:

    Instead, just email PE (no letters)
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • logician
    • By logician 11th Jan 18, 12:53 AM
    • 127 Posts
    • 63 Thanks
    logician
    Equita is a simple debt collector probably in the
    next room to PE.
    Originally posted by beamerguy

    noo.. Equita are another wholly owned Capita company and not in the next room to PE..


    If PE have passed this to Equita from a LBCCC then they have put this on the back burner for a while.

    PE do issue a number of court claims for MSA services.

    @ Der45 which MSA did the event take place
    • Der45
    • By Der45 11th Jan 18, 7:47 PM
    • 5 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Der45
    @ Der45 which MSA did the event take place
    Gordano´s Services


    Post #4 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread comprehensively explains how to deal with debt collector's letters.
    Ok so better to ignore them and stop wasting more time. I'll keep my energy to prepare my defence if they finally send me court papers.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 11th Jan 18, 7:50 PM
    • 5,182 Posts
    • 3,647 Thanks
    KeithP
    Ok so better to ignore them and stop wasting more time. I'll keep my energy to prepare my defence if they finally send me court papers.
    Originally posted by Der45
    Sounds like a good plan.
    .
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th Jan 18, 7:57 PM
    • 52,911 Posts
    • 66,444 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Equita's involvement tells you this is shelved into the 'let's try to intimidate them' pile. Some companies love to harass and intimidate people but blow hot air, and that includes PE where their connected arm 'Equita' are used to send a letter chain.

    You'd have had a claim by now if they thought they had a case.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Marktheshark
    • By Marktheshark 11th Jan 18, 8:01 PM
    • 5,693 Posts
    • 7,173 Thanks
    Marktheshark
    You should inform WHSmith you will be counter claiming the amount from WHsmith as they caused the loss by basic incompetence.
    They would have to hire a solicitor for a day and defend the counter claim.

    You might just get their attention then.
    Address a copy to the legal officer / secretary of WHsmith.
    Brexit will become whatever they invent it to be.
Welcome to our new Forum!

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

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

4,671Posts Today

11,325Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Hi folks. I'm drowning in questions and can't get to them all. So I'm going to prepare key links which should put? https://t.co/JjGl2DlqBp

  • Depends on the ex-wife's credit score. You acan apply to 'disassociate' if you are truly no longer financially lin? https://t.co/1YBdwA9MBE

  • Annoying barring mortgage most affordability calcs are based more on income and debt rather than your actual person? https://t.co/MbyirMydbx

  • Follow Martin