Parking Eye

Fudgelady

Hi,

This is my first post.

Just after some advice about parking eye 'parking ticket'.

I've currently fighting a parking ticket issued by this company after parking in an aldi car park with a friend.

I have read on here (on older threads) and other websites that once I have told them I am not the driver then it is up to the company to provide evidence of who the driver on the day was. I have written to them twice now telling them that they need to provide evidence of who was driving and now they are saying I have to tell them who it was or pay up.

The also cited some court case in Oldham 2008 where the man, a Mr. Thomas, was found guilty because he wouldn't say who was driving but my friend has informed me that it was because he had admitted on the internet that he was in fact the driver --- does anyone know if this is the case? Is this just a scare tactic?

Should I write to them again explaining that in contract law it is a contract between the company and the driver but and that I have no obligation to inform them who was driving? Or should I just now leave the matter?

My car is registered to a different address to where I actually live because I am away at uni so i'm worried they might send bailiffs round to my parent's house :undecided

Christine

esmerobbo

You are right they are wrong. The Thomas case is their pet but is totally irrelevant. It is too late now but this is the reason ignoring them is the best tactic, because they spout utter rubbish to try and justify their charge.

Parking spy don't do court. Bailiffs can not be sent by Parking spy only a court can send them.

Relax sit back and ignore them from now on.

For reference! http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/8/news/15246/parking-penalty-just-judge-rules

trisontana

Fudgelady wrote: »

Hi,

This is my first post.

Just after some advice about parking eye 'parking ticket'.

I've currently fighting a parking ticket issued by this company after parking in an aldi car park with a friend.

I have read on here (on older threads) and other websites that once I have told them I am not the driver then it is up to the company to provide evidence of who the driver on the day was. I have written to them twice now telling them that they need to provide evidence of who was driving and now they are saying I have to tell them who it was or pay up.

The also cited some court case in Oldham 2008 where the man, a Mr. Thomas, was found guilty because he wouldn't say who was driving but my friend has informed me that it was because he had admitted on the internet that he was in fact the driver --- does anyone know if this is the case? Is this just a scare tactic?

Should I write to them again explaining that in contract law it is a contract between the company and the driver but and that I have no obligation to inform them who was driving? Or should I just now leave the matter?

My car is registered to a different address to where I actually live because I am away at uni so i'm worried they might send bailiffs round to my parent's house :undecided

Christine

Just ignore, it's that simple.

Please don't confuse debt connectors with bailiffs. The former are just private citizens with no special powers. They cannot enter your property, they cannot seize goods and they cannot blacken your credit record over a private parking matter.

For proper bailiffs to be involved. The case would have to go to court (very unlikely) you lose (very, very unlikely and then you don't pay the whatever the judge orders within 28 days. This is such a remote possibility that it's not worth worrying about.

Coupon-mad

Dunno why you wrote at all, were you following Martin Lewis' very old advice in the article on this website? If so you should have asked on the current forum as the advice is to ignore. Send no letters, nothing happens.

The good news is that it doesn't matter that you've written, you can just ignore them from now on. Resist the urge to write again, I know you want to defend your position but it's utterly pointless.

Just let the standard letters run their course, there will be no effect on your credit rating.

There is an old case from 2008, the Thomas case, which is well-known and completely irrelevant especially since Parking Eye NEVER ever take people to Court. Never. And bailiffs only call after a company win a Court case and then the person doesn't pay (you can see that can't happen with a company that never does Court!).

Just read up on this a bit more on the forum, forget the 'writing letters' article, none of us agree with it in 99% of cases. Ignoring is the answer.

To see the whole parking board which includes other threads on Parking Eye, pics of the standard debt collector letters you will get (meh, hot air!) and a link to a Watchdog clip with advice, click the blue link 'Parking Fines, Tickets and Parking' at the top of the page (under the orange Banking Saving tab).

Settle down and read the stickies and follow the links, read other people's threads. You will soon be laughing when the expected trashy letters arrive with predictable regularity. Oh, and make sure your parents see this thread and watch the Watchdog link etc. so they don't panic when the daft debt collector letters keep arriving for you. They MUST NOT pay on your behalf, they must understand that this is not a real parking fine. Do not let them fall for it, spread the word.

HO87

Oh dear, that hoary old chestnut - CPS v Stephen Thomas. Your friend is correct that sadly, Mr Thomas had admitted in a forum that he had been driving at the time the vehicle was parked in a church car park. The proprietor of CPS - a man of some note in PPC World - printed off the forum posts and produced them to the judge who, needless to say did not take kindly to their content. Mr Thomas lost the case.

However, much as PE can cite as many cases similar to this as they like (there are actually very few of them) no county court case creates any precedent in terms of obliging other courts to follow their findings and PE will know this (or ought to).

Do not have any more contact with them. They could only ever "send" bailiffs to the address were they to actually institute proceedings (which would be a first for PE anyway), then you'd have to lose (highly unlikely if PE cannot prove who was driving) and then you'd d have to refuse to pay any order the court made within 28 days. Too many "ifs" for PE's liking so they will just continue to attempt to bully you into submission and pay them. Do not do so.

Fudgelady

Thanks everyone you've been a great help :T

Yes I had read the old advice and knowing now that i shouldn't have contacted them is annoying but what is done is done.

I have spoken to my parents and luckily they already know about how to deal with bailiffs

I'm certainly not going to be bullied by anyone!!

Christine

bromsgrovebarry

You will not see any bailiffs, they will give up after a few silly letters. I goaded Parking Eye to take me to court but all I heard were some clucking noises. Pathetic company not worth losing sleep over. Oh and Parking Eye are fine ones to talk about the finer points of law, some of their notices are illegal and not so long ago they had to take down two websites that broke the law concerning misrepresentation. See my signature.

ripped_off_driver

Fudgelady wrote: »

The also cited some court case in Oldham 2008 where the man, a Mr. Thomas, was found guilty because he wouldn't say who was driving but my friend has informed me that it was because he had admitted on the internet that he was in fact the driver --- does anyone know if this is the case? Is this just a scare tactic?

Ah that hoary old chestnut, Combined Parking Solutions v Stephen Thomas. Not only were the facts of this case truly bizarre but there is every indication that it was a total set up by a desperate and sad PPC boss called Perky (the owner of Combined Parking Solutions). The fact that this weird and totally discredited case is still being dragged up reeals how desperate these people are. ParkingEye do not do court and there is no chance of you being the first. Just ignore, do not contact them and keep your hard earned money in your pocket, rather than give it to a bunch of chancers sending begging letters and quoting dodgy set up cases.

Coupon-mad

Fudgelady wrote: »

Thanks everyone you've been a great help :T

Yes I had read the old advice and knowing now that i shouldn't have contacted them is annoying but what is done is done.

I have spoken to my parents and luckily they already know about how to deal with bailiffs

I'm certainly not going to be bullied by anyone!!

Christine

No bailiffs will call, that's only after a Court case. Debt collectors are toothless money-chasers.

All you have to do is ignore letters and if they manage to get a phone number tell them to cease all contact and return the file to the original company - or you will report them for the criminal offence of harassment, as any debt is denied. Simple.

robredz

They cannot force you to reveal who was driving unlike a scamera fine from a GATSO, as they rely on civil contract law.

dog1

A friend received a "Parking Charge Notice" from Parking Eye yesterday, they over stayed their 5 hour limit in Cameron Toll shopping center, Edinburgh, earlier this month. As they spent the time within the centre they are loathed to pay the £50 fine, which is set to jump to £80 in a few days then £110 thereafter.

Surely this must be legit' as the DVLA have passed out their name and address details to Parking eye from the car's registration number, and they appear to be operating on behalf of the Shopping Centre?
http://www.camerontoll.co.uk/services/

Could anyone advise the position regarding this "fine" in Scotland?

Ignoring this does appear to be like burying your head in the sand, my friend would hate to be pestered by debt collectors, but this does come across as a form of extorsion that the £50 fine will be increased to £110 if not paid quickly. I'd just hate to see them being forced to pay £110 at a later date.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.