Parking Eye - My Story (sofar)

rafraf03

Hi all,

I'd started posting some messages in the main Parking Eye thread to document my story which seems not tp be the best place to do so, so here I am to pick it up!

Here is a summary of the messages:

===== Message 1 ( http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=49864077&postcount=967 )

Like many previous posters here we have also received an invoice / demand for payment / whatever you want to call it from Parking Eye.:(

The format of the letter is similar to http://www.scarletfire.co.uk/wp-cont...-50percent.jpg which is in one of the sticky post and was addressed to Mrs rafraf03 as she's the registered owner at the DVLA. I received it throught the post and didn't get anything on my windscreen.

The way I see it, they have had to purchase that information from the DVLA, so point 6 in this guide now applies. I am happy to ignore anything they throw at us, but for my personal understanding, is the only reason for ignoring them that it would be difficult for them to enforce the invoice? I.e. they would have to prove in a court of law that you have entered in a contract with them?

Would it be not easier to just say that Mrs rafraf03 wasn't driving the car that evening (she wasn't) and that we don't wish to name the driver / Can't remember the name of the driver (which they can't force us to do)?

===== Reply Message 1 ( http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=49865289&postcount=969 ) Thanks to FatAndy

Have a look here - http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/rep...rms/oft311.pdf - page 40, section 5.1. Under contract law you can't impose "disproportinate sanctions" so Parking Eye's charges aren't legally enforceable, whether or not you've entered into a contract or not. All they can claim is any actual losses incurred.

[to be continued ...]

rafraf03

[Part 2]

===== Message 2 ( http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=50099857&postcount=1000 )

Got my second letter today, one day before the reduced rate expires (naughty naughty !) presumably to scare me into paying.
I am really starting to enjoy this (although Mrs rafraf isn't !)

pogofish

You are reading the wrong guide!

Stop now and go-read the correct guide, then simply ignore these scammers completely from now-on.

You are giving them far too much credence.

And check the letter chain thread to get an idea of the rest of the meaningless threat letters they will send you before giving-up and moving on to another mug.

rafraf03

Soooo, Since then we have received another reminder (addressed to Mrs rafraf03, the registered owner) telling us that we hadn't paid and that the price had obviously gone up.
And today, we have received the dreaded letter from the debt collectors, which I will try to scan. The interesting part to note says:

We are fully aware of anecdotal information being presented via the internet and on various websites annd you may well feel this guidance is worth follwing. We strongly urge you to seek independent legal advice rather than rely on these opinions and we would respectively suggest that you refer to the Civil Procedure Rules part 31 and more specifically 31.16 and 31.17

Not sure what they're on about (and I am not a lawyer) but een with these 2 paragraphs they don't have a leg to stand on
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1998/3132/article/31.16/made
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1998/3132/article/31.17/made

In both cases, it states:
"(2) The application must be supported by evidence."

Good luck with that!

Till Next time !

rafraf03

pogofish wrote: »

You are reading the wrong guide!

Stop now and go-read the correct guide, then simply ignore these scammers completely from now-on.

You are giving them far too much credence.

And check the letter chain thread to get an idea of the rest of the meaningless threat letters they will send you before giving-up and moving on to another mug.

Thanks for the advice PogoFish, on my way to do that. I just thought it would be interesting to document the whole process

pogofish

They don't have a leg to stand-on with any of their threats and false claims.

All that quote demonstrates is that our work on this and other forums has hit them hard and they can't do a thing about it. Civil Procedure is an expensive legal procedure that is only applicable to higher courts that these guys don't use. So its flannel, pure and simple.

There are many, many Parking Eye threads here and the reliable way to deal with them is quite simple - IGNORE!

give_them_FA

If you start off with the assumption they are lying you will usually be right. Under no circumstances reply to them, just leave them to talk to themselves. Why is the debt collector "dreaded"? They are a total joke. They are losing money because people are learning that they cannot enforce their scam charges and the bullsh*t is getting thicker and smellier.

Don't think about telling them who was driving, edit out any personal or identifying details from your posts.

Sit tight and the sum demanded will become zero as they realise the forum has beaten them again and will cut their losses and crawl back into their hole.

P.S. well done for checking and finding they are talking garbage on their reference to civil procedure rules, it worries a few people but basically it's just more of their disinformation, maybe they could get a job with the C.I.A. or the K.G.B.?

Oh, and by the way don't throw their letters away, as you may be able to sue them for harassment; so keep the evidence.

rafraf03

give_them_FA wrote: »

Why is the debt collector "dreaded"? They are a total joke.

Ok My sarcasm was lost in translation :rotfl:

give_them_FA wrote: »

Don't think about telling them who was driving, edit out any personal or identifying details from your posts.

How does it look sofar? I've tried to keep it as generic as possible...

give_them_FA wrote: »

P.S. well done for checking and finding they are talking garbage on their reference to civil procedure rules, it worries a few people but basically it's just more of their disinformation, maybe they could get a job with the C.I.A. or the K.G.B.?

Thanks for that, just got a bit curious about the reference and wanted to know what it was all about: the content is actually quite understandable and not complete lawyer speak.

give_them_FA wrote: »

Oh, and by the way don't throw their letters away, as you may be able to sue them for harassment; so keep the evidence.

Never occured to me: thanks for the advice!

Kite2010

The easiest way to deal with Parking Pie, sorry Parking Eye is to ignore them, don't enter into any communication with them. If you make contact they mark your file as someone whom is reading the letters.

Just ignore Parking Pie and ignore the retailers whom use them to "manage" their car-park.

give_them_FA

Yes, if they make threats against a person who isn't liable to pay them, or make threats to take action if the person doesn't disclose the driver's name, they are using unlawful harassment. They can be sued. I know, because I did it.

esmerobbo

They were actually asked about using this "Civil Procedure Rules part 31 and more specifically 31.16 and 31.17" in their letters by the BPA as it was not relevant, Roxburghe said it was included for "information" purposes?

So it is now irrelevant information!