Parking Eye - Nasty tricks

esmerobbo

A post today OP who followed the ignore advice!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3013048

wary

If he's a qualified solicitor then presumably he knows what he's talking about, to a certain extent at least. However, his judgement/advice may have been compromised by:
- suppose he advised me to ignore but I did get successfully sued and had to pay infinitely more ... hence to not-pay is not really advice he could risk giving
- he obviously felt that morally I should pay, and that may have affected his judgement
- he was of the opinion that of course they'll have clear photographic evidence of the driver, otherwise what they're doing would be totally pointless; I don't think he really considered that maybe they rely on scare tactics rather than being able to successfully sue

However, suppose the car park is covered by CCTV and clearly shows me as the driver? I want to take your advise & hold my nerve, but you can understand why I'm also a bit jittery in case they do have sufficient proof.

esmerobbo

To begin with I am not legally qualified I have read and followed advise here and other such sites. Others may well pick upon this solicitors points. This is how I see it.

wary wrote: »

If he's a qualified solicitor then presumably he knows what he's talking about, to a certain extent at least.Not necessarily so he may know an awful lot about criminal law and jack shoite about contract law. However, his judgement/advice may have been compromised by:
- suppose he advised me to ignore but I did get successfully sued and had to pay infinitely more ... hence to not-pay is not really advice he could risk giving Granted he could be covering his backside
- he obviously felt that morally I should pay, and that may have affected his judgement So for a small overstay its morally right to pay £60
- he was of the opinion that of course they'll have clear photographic evidence of the driver, otherwise what they're doing would be totally pointless; They have poor quality uncertififed camera images of a car and a VRMI don't think he really considered that maybe they rely on scare tactics rather than being able to successfully sueParking Eye have never sued anyone yet.

However, suppose the car park is covered by CCTV and clearly shows me as the driver? They wont have I want to take your advise & hold my nerve, but you can understand why I'm also a bit jittery in case they do have sufficient proof.Even if they had proof you were the driver they still would not have a claim for anything more then any loss they suffered which in a free car park is £0

We can only advise what we would do, I personally have dealt with Parking eye before ignoring was the advice given. I asked them to take me to court. I never heard from them again.
If you are unduly worried then the only other option is to pay them. It may make them go away. Unfortunately for some it hasn't

Sirdan

wary wrote: »

Further to my earlier post, because I have free access to a legal advice line manned by fully qualified solicitors, I decided to run it past them for peace of mind. However, what he said is totally contrary to the advice given here, and also apparently by the BBC Watchdog solicitor.

He does agree that their only course of action is to sue under breach of contract. However, he reckons that they'll almost certainly have photographic evidence proving conclusively it was me and he knows of a LARGE number of cases where private parking companies have successfully sued people.

His advice to me is that if I know that I'm guilty then I should just pay it. This partly seemed based on a moralistic approach (although he's there to advise me legally, not morally), and also to prevent the risk of the costs spiralling out of control, especially if bailiffs get involved.

If, contrary to his advice, I want to be "pedantic" about it and attempt to wriggle out of it on a technicality, then I should request copies of whatever photographic evidence they have of who was driving, so I can determine the extent of their proof. Certainly, to simply ignore all of their correspondence would be totally CRAZY in his opinion.

Any thoughts?

Yes 1) He doesn't know what he is talking about.!!

2) If there were a large number of wins by PPCs they would quote such in their threatening letters but they don't ..at best they rely on the Stephen Thomas case from 2008.
Lots of wins but they rely on a 2008 case..er ..I dont think so ..I refer you to point 1) above !!!!

Sir_Roger_deLodger

wary wrote: »

- he was of the opinion that of course they'll have clear photographic evidence of the driver, otherwise what they're doing would be totally pointless;

Even if they have a high resolution photo of the driver smiling and waving at the camera, does he honestly think that they can put a name to a picture of someone they have never seen before? Does he think they have some sort of vast database with a photo of everyone in the world? Even the police don't have that capability.
Some solicitor.

Oopsadaisy

Wary...if you're really truly worried there is a simple solution.

Pay up, and move on with your life.

You're not legally obliged to do so, and morals has nothing to do with it...it's simply a matter of expediency. If you're going to be worrying for months [unlike many on here who relish the next PPC letter of cr4pola], pay up.

wary

Oopsadaisy wrote: »

Wary...if you're really truly worried there is a simple solution.

Pay up, and move on with your life.

You're not legally obliged to do so, and morals has nothing to do with it...it's simply a matter of expediency. If you're going to be worrying for months [unlike many on here who relish the next PPC letter of cr4pola], pay up.

There's some sense in what you say as sometimes it is better to just cough up and get on with your life rather than having something hanging over you. However, I've feel reassured by you guys and am looking forward to winning my scrap with them! It was just a bit disconcerting before, listening to that solicitor!:eek:

Coupon-mad

This is an old thread, with old advice which no longer applies from 2013 onwards!!!!!


STOP READING NOW THIS IS A WASTE OF YOUR TIME, GO TO PAGE ONE OF THIS FORUM INSTEAD (ONE CLICK AWAY, AS EXPLAINED IN MY SIGNATURE BELOW).


YOU MUST APPEAL NOW IF IN ENGLAND/WALES!!!!!!

jaseone

Just thought I'd add to this wonderful thread which has put my mind to rest. I was going to call Parking Eye today but now I know I don't need to.

I had just finished my shopping and was about to leave the car park, when my clutch slave cylinder decided to give up the ghost. I had noticed the signs stating maximum 1 hour parking (which is a bit tight) so I went in to see the store manager to inform him that my car had broken down in the car park. He was most unhelpful and didn't want to take any details and just said "if you get a ticket, come in to the store and we'll cancel it". So off I went. I managed to borrow a friends car and get the shopping home and whilst there, called the recovery company who were quite prompt. My car was recovered to the local garage.

So times goes on and I thought I'd gotten away with exceeding the hour. It was more like 2 hours I think but what can I do with a broken down car? Push it out of the car park on to a main road??

One month later, I find Parking Eye have sent me a letter. You'll like this. It was a FINAL NOTICE. Hang on I thought. What happened to the previous two notices they said they have sent?

Could it be now they are so desperate and are trying to save money, that they are going straight for the FINAL NOTICE??

bondy_lad

they may well be doing this,,,but what upsets me about your post is the fact the store manager didnt want to know, great customer service/relations,,,,just like the geek i spoke to about p.e. at aldi 2 weeks ago,,,they both deserve what they are going to get,,,a)store takings down,due to these cowboys,,,and b)a visit to jobcentre plus when they get the boot because of the major drop in takings,if p.e. are going straight to final notice, it could be because of the increased number of people who realise its a total scam and are not paying????