Parking Eye - Nasty tricks

Hadeon

Sirdan wrote: »

So we can see that so called "keeper liability" is not about a strict liability ..it is all about allowing the BPA to lawfully extend it's threatening and intimidating business model to keepers as well as drivers !!

But surely that's the situation as it currently stands anyway, or am I missing something obvious here?

TBH, I find this whole issue extremely confusing.

Sirdan

Hadeon wrote: »

But surely that's the situation as it currently stands anyway, or am I missing something obvious here?

TBH, I find this whole issue extremely confusing.

It is similar but not the same.

At present there is some onus on the claimant (PPC) to show the court that the person they are claiming against was "on balance of probability" the driver.
If they cannot the claim is an automatic loss for the PPC.

If Schedule 4 is enacted it removes this burden. The PPC can legitimately say to the court we don't know who was driving but we seek to recover the claimed amount from the keeper as per Schedule 4.

It is then for the poor old DJ to work out how a person who is not party to a contract can possibly be liable for it or how a person who was not present can be liable for a trespass !!

That's if he hasn't already thrown the claim out as an unenforceable penalty !!! (As per the County Court Appeal Judgement in Thurlow vs OPC)

Schedule 4 will save PPCs and debt collectors lieing about CPR 31.16 & NPOs etc etc .
They can proceed directly to "we asked you who was driving, you didn't tell us ..so we claim against you" but that in no way imposes a strict liability on the keeper to PAY ..that is still for the DJ to decide.

Of course the PPC business being rotten to the core will no doubt write their letters in terms which heavily imply that the keeper is liable to PAY as opposed to the truth.

It's not so complicated really..nor is it the wonderful solution the BPA were looking for.

What they actually wanted was a strict owner/keeper liability TO PAY as per real PCNs but they can't have that as this is still contract law not statute ! :rotfl:


For clarity as Alexis is fond of saying it matters not what Schedule 4 says about keepers at the end of the day this is still, contract law or trespass.
Most of the time there is either no proper contract (as per Excel's recent loss) or the charge is an unenforceable penalty. Or in the case of trespass the amount claimed in no way reflects any loss / damages incurred.

jkdd77

Sirdan wrote: »

It is similar but not the same.

That's if he hasn't already thrown the claim out as an unenforceable penalty !!! (As per the High Court Judgement in Thurlow vs OPC)

Thurlow v OPC was merely a County Court (appeal) judgement, not a High Court judgement. It does not set case law, although one hopes that many district judges would find it highly persuasive.

Sirdan

jkdd77 wrote: »

Thurlow v OPC was merely a County Court (appeal) judgement, not a High Court judgement. It does not set case law, although one hopes that many district judges would find it highly persuasive.

Yes my mistake , I read Worcester Combined Court as something other than County Court and assumed (wrongly) that an appeal would be heard in a higher court.:o

liannee22

Oh my god,

thank you :j:j:j:j:j:j

thank you :j:j:j:j:j:j

thank you:j:j:j:j:j:j

Ive just logged on to pay the parking eye invioce i got for staying 17mins over the allotted 1hr time limit in chester last week and on the off change i googled them and found all your lovely advice and comments, needless to say i am not going to pay :beer: im going to ignore, ignore, ignore :T thanks guys x x x

trisontana

Spread the word to all your friends and family about the scam that is the private parking "industry"

liannee22

will do! im so pleased to have found this thread, ive just put my card back into my purse and will put the £50 towards another christmas pressie for my daughter x x

Coupon-mad

The advice in England/Wales has changed - DO NOT IGNORE!!!!


So stop reading this ancient thread and get reading the sticky threads on page one from this year instead!!

liannee22

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Good! Did you also read the sticky threads on this sub-forum, not just this single little thread among thousands?

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/forumdisplay.php?f=163

The important threads for you would be 'welcome, please read before posting' which includes info and a Watchdog link which is a must-see for you.

And also the top sticky, 'PPC letters, what to expect' is VERY important as the registered keeper wil receive a letter-chain of threatograms which, if you took them at face value, could make you think they might take you to Court (they lie). You can see pictures of all the letters in that top thread, so you can just play snap with each matching letters as it arrives.

Nothing will happen, no CCJ, no Court, no effect on your credit rating because it's not a fine. 'Tis a SCAM.

to be honest i just googled parking eye and a link to this thread come up! ill check that stuff above out later! cant believe i was going to pay! x

Sirdan

liannee22 wrote: »

to be honest i just googled parking eye and a link to this thread come up! ill check that stuff above out later! cant believe i was going to pay! x

:rotfl: :beer: