Parking Eye issued fine for attending book signing

daveyjp

Ignore everyting, but if your partner as registered keeper is receiving threatening letters about a debt which cannot be enforced against him he needs to report it as a fraud.

www.actionfraud.org.uk

eddddy

Hi Amy

You may want to think carefully about writing the letter of complaint to Asda. Currently, Parking Eye don't know for sure who parked the car, so they can't really pursue it. If your letter of complaint states that you parked in their car park for 4 hours, and Asda pass your letter on to Parking Eye, they would have much more evidence which they could use against you in a court case.

Eddddy

johnson293

eddddy wrote: »

Hi Amy

You may want to think carefully about writing the letter of complaint to Asda. Currently, Parking Eye don't know for sure who parked the car, so they can't really pursue it. If your letter of complaint states that you parked in their car park for 4 hours, and Asda pass your letter on to Parking Eye, they would have much more evidence which they could use against you in a court case.

Eddddy

But surely this 'Parking Eye' company are working for Asda to enforce the parking, so if the situation is explained to Asda, then they should have the power to say whether they want that particular customer pursued, or not?

Basically the OP was in Asda for 4 hours, while parked in their car park - does that mean anyone coming up to 4 hours shopping in their store (maybe unlikely, but possible) must leave to move their car while possibly finshing their shopping?

As I said before, these parking enforcers are surely there to stop people parking in an ample car park and going off/shopping elsewhere, rather than in Asda?

Alternatively just ignore it, as that seems to be the done thing in these situation.

eddddy

Hi Johnson

In legal terms, it's just like any other car park that you pay for using. For example, a "pay on exit" car park might have a sign at the entrance that says something like:

"Up to 3 hours parking: £2. Over 3 hours parking: £10"

You might park intending to stay for less than 3 hours, but because of long queues in the shops etc you stay for 4 hours. So you have to pay the £10. (I guess you could ask the car park owner/operator to accept £2 - perhaps as a goodwill gesture.)

In the OP's case, there would have been a sign saying something to the effect of:

"Up to 3 hours parking: No charge. Over 3 hours parking: £110 (payable on the invoice we will send you by post)"

The letter from Parking Eye is essentially an invoice. By complaining to Asda, they may agree to waive the charge as a good will gesture - or they may not.

If the OP was complaining that the signs were unclear or hidden behind bushes etc, then she might have a valid complaint. But if she had seen the signs and still parked in the car park for 4 hours, in law, she has probably agreed to pay.

As an aside, it sounds like the Asda in question is on a retail park, so the car park may be owned by the retail park and not Asda. The retail park owners may be a lot more 'hard hearted' than Asda.

People (like the OP) who think that the parking policy is wrong should definately complain to Asda, and perhaps take their custom elsewhere - but they should also perhaps think carefully about admitting to Asda that they had actually parked in the car park for 4 hours.


Eddddy

cazarol

My daughter has had one of these notices whilst parking at the same book signing. When I rang Asda it is not their 'parking' company who has issued the fines but the company who 'work' for Matalan. Asda instructed their car park attendants etc that there would be no penalties on this day and also mentioned it to other local businesses, who obviously saw an opportunity to make a bit of a killing !!

DaveF327

I hope the book was worth it!

johnsnow_3

Why dont we all go shopping at asda kingswood at an agreed date and time fill several trollys up with all our frozen products to fill our chest freezers up, and take them to check out and then explain that we have to go because our parking time is nearly up leaving them with several trollys times how many people we can get to take part!!!! to sort out

jkdd77

eddddy wrote: »

Hi Johnson

In legal terms, it's just like any other car park that you pay for using. For example, a "pay on exit" car park might have a sign at the entrance that says something like:

"Up to 3 hours parking: £2. Over 3 hours parking: £10"

You might park intending to stay for less than 3 hours, but because of long queues in the shops etc you stay for 4 hours. So you have to pay the £10. (I guess you could ask the car park owner/operator to accept £2 - perhaps as a goodwill gesture.)

In the OP's case, there would have been a sign saying something to the effect of:

"Up to 3 hours parking: No charge. Over 3 hours parking: £110 (payable on the invoice we will send you by post)"

The letter from Parking Eye is essentially an invoice. By complaining to Asda, they may agree to waive the charge as a good will gesture - or they may not.

If the OP was complaining that the signs were unclear or hidden behind bushes etc, then she might have a valid complaint. But if she had seen the signs and still parked in the car park for 4 hours, in law, she has probably agreed to pay.

As an aside, it sounds like the Asda in question is on a retail park, so the car park may be owned by the retail park and not Asda. The retail park owners may be a lot more 'hard hearted' than Asda.

People (like the OP) who think that the parking policy is wrong should definately complain to Asda, and perhaps take their custom elsewhere - but they should also perhaps think carefully about admitting to Asda that they had actually parked in the car park for 4 hours.


Eddddy

Invoice amounts of £110, or even £80, are blatantly penalty charges that do not represent a reasonable pre-estimate of actual loss, and, as such, cannot be legally enforced even if the identity of the driver can be proven. Any "agreement" to pay such penalty charges is null and void, and any demands to pay can be safely ignored.

The OP's husband is not liable in any case, (not being the driver) and is under no obligation to name the driver, so the "ignore" advice is even sounder than usual.