Parking Eye - Nasty tricks

give_them_FA

I think we are going to take opposing viewpoints on this one. The unwillingness of the police to get involved is common ground, but, in law, a company could not say that it was justifiable to harass an individual they did not KNOW was liable to pay them, merely because they were unable to ascertain who was.

If they operate a system of questionable legality whose Achilles heel is that they are not usually aware of the identity of the "debtor" then they cannot pursue someone else with threats of Court.

The fact that they could (try to) take out legal proceedings which would amount to being vexatious and an abuse of process could never amount to a justification for harassment in either civil or criminal law.

When a District Judge referred this to the Police (they could not ignore HIM) the company were prosecuted and fined heavily, I believe.

Sirdan

give_them_FA wrote: »

I think we are going to take opposing viewpoints on this one. The unwillingness of the police to get involved is common ground, but, in law, a company could not say that it was justifiable to harass an individual they did not KNOW was liable to pay them, merely because they were unable to ascertain who was.

If they operate a system of questionable legality whose Achilles heel is that they are not usually aware of the identity of the "debtor" then they cannot pursue someone else with threats of Court.

The fact that they could (try to) take out legal proceedings which would amount to being vexatious and an abuse of process could never amount to a justification for harassment in either civil or criminal law.

When a District Judge referred this to the Police (they could not ignore HIM) the company were prosecuted and fined heavily, I believe.

I would take issue with your use of the word know ..I don't believe they have to "know" as such , they merely have to have a reasonably held belief and as this is a civil matter (the alleged debt) that belief has to be on the balance of probability.
Whilst I don't agree with it , these companies assert that where a keeper ignores them or outright refuses to name the driver that is because on probability they are the driver ..and some courts are sympathetic to this and have allowed claims to proceed on this basis.
It follows that if you are allowed to pursue an individual who you believe owes you ,then written communications with that individual are not harassment per se unless the nature of the communication by style/content and/or frequency makes them so.. or it is proven that the company could reasonably be expected to know that they had the wrong person, hard to prove this to a criminal standard...hence Fergusson v British Gas was proceeded on a civil basis even though on the face of it a criminal case had a better than even chance of sucess.

If the courts were to support a position where the PPC could only write to the keeper and ask who was driving and if the keeper says not me then no more communication is permissable as it falls foul of harassment legislation..this sadly only goes to strengthen the PPCs arguement that they need "keeper liability" brought in on a statutory basis...I'd rather they just wrote their silly letters and we ignored them as we do now ..wouldn't you ?

Harassment of course will always be subjective, to the unknowing and vunerable PPC letters are indeed distressing / harassing documents ..but to other like you and I they are just laughable.

I do believe however where the line should be drawn is that Debt Collectors who lie and make threats they can not possibly carry out should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law as should the PPCs who use them. In short, write a couple of letters PPC then get on and file that small claim or sod off.simples.

give_them_FA

PPC's use a process of abstruse legal reasoning to try to justify their outrageous demands. Courts have generally not upheld these, as being penalties rather than contractual obligations.

They cannot threaten someone who they have no evidence is the person who allegedly made the contract with them, simply because they are the vehicle keeper. Nor can it be assumed that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the keeper was driving.

If you owed me £100 but I couldn't trace you. would you consider it acceptable for me to threaten to take your next of kin to court for your debt?

The entire PPC business model is flawed, and can only operate as a scam because they use deceit and threats to get people to pay.

mansfieldtown

if you use the phone number they give you to pay let it run through all the options then press the hash key 3 times you will get through to an operator be a shame if alot of people keep ringing:j

oliverscott

Hi just reading this thread with interest.
We wrote a letter to them complaining about the charge and pleading poverty. What happens now? Everyone says dont contact them???
ps our bill was £90, £60 if you cough up quick.

-ollie

give_them_FA

Hello, Ollie, it would have been better if you had ignored them, but at least you are here now...

Forget any further contact with them, don't pay them £90, don't pay them £60;

All you actually need to pay them is the princely sum of £0.00.

Just ignore every bullcrap letter they write to you, wait patiently until they get fed up with trying to bully you, and they will realise you are no MUG and they will cut their losses and clear off.

They always do.

And when that's happened, be sure and tell all your friends- NEVER PAY A PARKING PARASITE. Unless it's Police or Council- IGNORE THEM.

oliverscott

Great, thanks for that. I shall ignore from now on. Cheers - Ollie

jaffacakegal

I got a letter re parking at the gym from Parking Eye. But I was in the gym at the time, I entered reg no wrong! Should I get proof I was there, or like everyone is saying ignore them?!

Oopsadaisy

jaffacakegal wrote: »

I got a letter re parking at the gym from Parking Eye. But I was in the gym at the time, I entered reg no wrong! Should I get proof I was there, or like everyone is saying ignore them?!

Ignore them.

taffy056

Hello before you consider placing a reply here, can you please start a new thread instead for advice. just press on the new thread button below to do so. The reason why I am asking this is this thread is very old, and the advice on here has changed, as things alter in the parking world the advice changes, it is easier to follow and offer advice in a brand new thread.

Many thanks