Private Parking - I admitted I'm the driver whoops

dopey100

I just wondered if I can get out of paying the fine. Parkingeye sent me the first letter and responded via the appeals email address saying yes I was the driver but believe I should not pay as I did some shopping and visited a friend who lives in an apartment above the store. Should I just pay up?

McKneff

If its a private parking company, just absolutley ignore everything they send you. Everything, and dont contact them either
They will eventually get fed up and the letters will eventually stop.

dopey100

Even if I have basically already admitted to breaking their so called rules of the car park?

Coupon-mad

Obviously ignore them still! It's a scam. Please read more about it, read the sticky threads at the top:

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

Once you have seen the preview of the letters to expect and ignore, and when you have seen the Watchdog clip on another top thread by Crabman, you WILL be certain about it I am sure. Read the 'stickies' (info threads at the top, but not Park Right as that one's irrelevant) and then read on down the thread list, click on ANY other threads you like.

Of course you can ignore them now, and the question ''can I still ignore them even though I have already ''appealed''? (;)LOL @ 'appealed'...:D) is asked a lot:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/search.php?searchid=120132249

That link will only last for a limited time as the question comes up so often the search result will change & no longer work. I just searched the sub-forum for keywords 'already appealed' if you want to repeat the search. Read any result that's NOT about a Council (real) PCN, as they are different.

Ignore them completely from now on. But do read up on the scam and watch the Watchdog clip if you've not seen that already, and get a preview of the letters to come. They really are easy to ignore when you can just play snap with them compared to the pics in the top thread.

HTH

dopey100

Cool thanks guys!

Crazy how these companies can get away with trying it on like this. Maybe I might pay this company a visit with a large number of cars and leave those cars in their car park.

Kite2010

Free car-park?

No damages to the landowner, and it's not like the landowner can sue you for £0.00 now. Ignore Parking Eye, although you've made contact so they might give you some more letters

Sirdan

Kite2010 wrote: »

Free car-park?

No damages to the landowner, and it's not like the landowner can sue you for £0.00 now. Ignore Parking Eye, although you've made contact so they might give you some more letters

Not strictly true if the free car park has a maximum time limit beyond which you are not permitted to stay , regardless of any payments or not.
Staying beyond an absolute maximum time limit could be construed as a trespass as you only have permission to be on the land for the maximum period specified on any signs. It follows that being on the land without permission is most likely a trespass.
It is possible for a landowner to claim for nominal damages for trespass there does not have be any actual real damage caused.
However PPCs don't generally go this route.

Kite2010

But what are nominal damages the landowner can claim for, for parking for longer than say 2 hours in a 2-hours only car-park (where the car-park has plenty of spaces)?

taffy056

Sirdan wrote: »

Not strictly true if the free car park has a maximum time limit beyond which you are not permitted to stay , regardless of any payments or not.
Staying beyond an absolute maximum time limit could be construed as a trespass as you only have permission to be on the land for the maximum period specified on any signs. It follows that being on the land without permission is most likely a trespass.
It is possible for a landowner to claim for nominal damages for trespass there does not have be any actual real damage caused.
However PPCs don't generally go this route.

Thats providing the signs are seen , most PPCs fall down in this area quite dramatically , for example I was in tesco Llanelli and I drove around looking for signs, in one entrance there were none as it shares a car park without scammers in, there is a camera there, there is a sign in another entrance, and then 3 other signs around the car park, this car park holds about 300-400 vehicles at least.

They have a maximum time allowed , but who the hell would know ?

Sirdan

Kite2010 wrote: »

But what are nominal damages the landowner can claim for, for parking for longer than say 2 hours in a 2-hours only car-park (where the car-park has plenty of spaces)?

Nominal damages are awarded when claimant proves the tort but there is no loss...what figure a County Court would consider reasonable is anybody's guess ....but I suspect it could well be an amount less than a PPC invoice ..which is why they and/or the landowner don't want to go this route.

commonwealthclaire

I am finding these posts quite interesting. Here is my story : I was staying at the Heathrow Marriott the night before flying back to Canada, having been in Wales due to a death in the family. I had a rental car which I didn't want to return right away. I found a parking area beside the hotel, away from the P&D area and went and checked in at the hotel, dropped my bags in my room, used the bathroom then left the car park.
I just received a "parking charge" from ParkingEye, which my first inclination was to ignore. However, having hired vehicles in Australia and New Zealand (where if you have so much as a parking ticket, you get charged double by the hire company), it occurred to me that if I didn't pay, they might go after the rental company, resulting in penalties from them and possibly blacklisting. With that in mind, I paid the charge, even though I think it is daylight robbery, bordering on extortion.
Having seen the posts here, I am thinking that I might appeal, or at least contact the company and tell them what I think of them.