Parking Eye - Nasty tricks

trisontana

This is an old thread, with old advice


NO REPLIES HERE PLEEEEEEEEEASE!!!!!!

Oopsadaisy

denzz wrote: »

Hi guys. Thanks for the info i have gathered so far regarding parking eye. I have just received a parking charge notice from them. In the notice they stated that i had failed to respond to their previous 2 notices, hence they are increasing the charge from £50 to £80 and will become £110 if i dont respond. The notice doesn't even tell me what the contravention is. But the problem is that I have never received any previous notices from them at all. This is the first! I feel like its a scam. I remember shopping at Morrisons on the day they claim the contravention took place, but it was a simple case of parking and shopping. This is strange.

Any advice? Thanks all

Yes....try reading the post immediately before yours.

blackdahlia

I started reading this thread back in april, when I received my first 'fine' from Parking Eye - the usual story, pay £50 within a limited period of time or the amount is increased to £80. Well to cut a long story short, I felt the charge was unfair and extortionate, and after reading all the posts, I decided to ignore the letter. I received a second letter informing me I now had a limited period to pay the £80, or it would be increased to £110. I then received a third letter telling me to pay the £110 immediatley or my case would be passed to a debt collection agency (I would submit the letters to the site but there's no point, they're exactly the same as the sample letters already uploaded). That was the last I heard from them, at the end of April. So far, no debt collectors, no court summonses, and its nearly July! So, for all of you that are going through it now, don't panic and stay strong! And to all the people who had been through it and posted on here, thank you, you're the reason I didn't cave in! :T

hillcats

blackdahlia wrote: »

So, for all of you that are going through it now, don't panic and stay strong! And to all the people who had been through it and posted on here, thank you, you're the reason I didn't cave in! :T

blackdahlia thanks for reporting back, join the ignore club !

Valdore

I've been looking into this tonight, as we had a complaint about a different aspect of the Parking Eye system in-store today, but ended up looking into this side mostly. As far as I can tell, the situation is as follows:

A private car park is the property of the owner, in the case of a supermarket, the store general manager, or the company director (not certain who it actually falls to)

By employing a company, such as Parking Eye, that is able to use Automatic Numberplate Recognition (ANPR), they are able to "Ensure that in protecting his property, legitimate users of his facilities are able to park unhindered in his private car park." (On British Parking Association, find the 'How ANPR works' page under Public Advice)

As a part of the same article, it is explained that parking charges issued by these companies are subject to the law of contract. That is to say that they can legally charge you damages if it is proven that you are in breach of contract with the owner of the property.

The article further highlights how the ANPR system works, and is an interesting read (not that long either!) The problem arises with defining the entering into of a contract, just because the signs are there doesn't mean the driver has read them, but does this constitute their not agreeing to the contract, or does it constitute them agreeing to a contract without apprising themselves of the terms. This makes the whole area a little shaky.

Strictly speaking, the charges are legally enforceable, if it can be proven that there is a contract in place that the driver has then broken. But, by going through the DVLA database, they aren't in fact tracking the driver, but rather the owner of the car, partially invalidating their legal claim, and if they can't prove that a contract has been entered into by both parties mutually (difficult to say the least) then the parking company is on an even less surer footing. So the tactic primarily works on those who are ignorant paying up, whilst those who know how it works can avoid the charges. I would, however, keep an eye out in case any of this changes, as the systems are still relatively new, and if it does change in the parking companies favour, you may find yourself unwittingly caught out.

Another useful link from the same sight as the other is the Approved Operator Scheme Members list, under the AOS category. Which lists all the approved operators, under the British Parking Association, as well as what measures they are approved to take, in the case of Parking Eye, they are only allowed to use the ANPR system, and operate ticketing procedures, they aren't authorised to use clamping, or debt recovery (Though I'm not certain how the latter one works in the case of debt recovery being outsourced to another company, that may still be allowed.)

Sorry for the lack of direct links, apparently I'm not allowed to post them . . .

esmerobbo

Valdore wrote: »

I've been looking into this tonight, as we had a complaint about a different aspect of the Parking Eye system in-store today, but ended up looking into this side mostly. As far as I can tell, the situation is as follows:

A private car park is the property of the owner, in the case of a supermarket, the store general manager, or the company director (not certain who it actually falls to)

By employing a company, such as Parking Eye, that is able to use Automatic Numberplate Recognition (ANPR), they are able to "Ensure that in protecting his property, legitimate users of his facilities are able to park unhindered in his private car park." (On British Parking Association, find the 'How ANPR works' page under Public Advice)

As a part of the same article, it is explained that parking charges issued by these companies are subject to the law of contract. That is to say that they can legally charge you damages if it is proven that you are in breach of contract with the owner of the property.

The article further highlights how the ANPR system works, and is an interesting read (not that long either!) The problem arises with defining the entering into of a contract, just because the signs are there doesn't mean the driver has read them, but does this constitute their not agreeing to the contract, or does it constitute them agreeing to a contract without apprising themselves of the terms. This makes the whole area a little shaky.

Strictly speaking, the charges are legally enforceable, if it can be proven that there is a contract in place that the driver has then broken. But, by going through the DVLA database, they aren't in fact tracking the driver, but rather the owner of the car, partially invalidating their legal claim, and if they can't prove that a contract has been entered into by both parties mutually (difficult to say the least) then the parking company is on an even less surer footing. So the tactic primarily works on those who are ignorant paying up, whilst those who know how it works can avoid the charges. I would, however, keep an eye out in case any of this changes, as the systems are still relatively new, and if it does change in the parking companies favour, you may find yourself unwittingly caught out.

Another useful link from the same sight as the other is the Approved Operator Scheme Members list, under the AOS category. Which lists all the approved operators, under the British Parking Association, as well as what measures they are approved to take, in the case of Parking Eye, they are only allowed to use the ANPR system, and operate ticketing procedures, they aren't authorised to use clamping, or debt recovery (Though I'm not certain how the latter one works in the case of debt recovery being outsourced to another company, that may still be allowed.)

Sorry for the lack of direct links, apparently I'm not allowed to post them . . .

You seem to have grasped the way the PPC's work,and realise they have a flimsy case. However you quote the BPA and AOS as if they are some sort of official body.
the BPA and AOS is a Parking company club. They work with the PPC's, they have no power to regulate them. The only sanction they have is to remove the ability to use the electronic link with the DVLA.
They let them breach most of the code of practice and do jack shoite about it.
The BPA in regards to PPC's is a toothless useless instrument.

A little example: BPA to Parking Spy sorry your signs do not comply!

Parking Spy to BPA sorry we will change them!

BPA to Parking Spy OK you have two years to comply!:)

Sir_Roger_deLodger

Valdore wrote: »

As a part of the same article, it is explained that parking charges issued by these companies are subject to the law of contract. That is to say that they can legally charge you damages if it is proven that you are in breach of contract with the owner of the property.

The damages in a free car park would be zero. That is all they could claim.

Valdore wrote: »

Strictly speaking, the charges are legally enforceable, if it can be proven that there is a contract in place that the driver has then broken.

No, a claim for damages may be legally enforceable. A made up "charge" would be classed as a penalty and would not.

john369_2

Hello, thought I would add another update on Parking Eye. Originally posted on 15 March about a charge notice received for parking in a Morrisons car park in early March 2011. Received their second notice "threat o gram" to owner of pictured vehicle about a week later. I chose to take the advice on this forum and did not contact Parking Eye in any way. No phone calls, no letters and no appeal. Since then I have received nothing, not even the third "debt collectors" story. They obviously are going to target the people they think they can successfully "intimidate". The best advice remains ignore, giving them nothing to work with.:beer:

Kite2010

So Valdore, do you think the £70 charge for over-staying a 2 hour limit on a retail park's car-park when your hammering out a deal to buy lets say a new kitchen at a cost of a few thousand is fair?

The charge of £70 is fair when you over-stay a 2 hour limit in a supermarket at a busy time of year (Christmas) when it takes 45 minutes to checkout?

TemplarCharger

Just in case anyone wanted to make professional contact with a Director of Parking Eye, Simon Smith, a "Professional Investor" is available in the public domain on Linked In.

uk.linkedin.com/pub/simon-smith/5/88/a86


All company directors have a duty to take corporate social responsibility seriously and as a professional investor I am sure Mr Smith would be both alarmed at the feedback his company is receiving on this website and would welcome feedback on his company's perceived breaches of social responsibility.

As a new user I am not allowed to post with links so I have removed the http:// from the linked in address above. Perhaps an established user might help help by copying the link to help others.