Parking Eye - My Story (sofar)

as5606

I've recently had one - well, two within two weeks from parking eye, although the gym is writing them off due to not telling gym members to put their registration into the screen on the front desk.

I see many people who say to ignore them backed up with the excuse that they can't prove who was driving.

Parking Eye now include a flyer in with their scare monger ticket sheet which tells of a new law since 1st Nov I think that says that the registered keeper is automatically charged with driving if nobody comes forward with a different name.

Does this put a new slant to the IGNORE argument?

ManxRed

as5606 wrote: »

I see many people who say to ignore them backed up with the excuse that they can't prove who was driving.

I don't think anyone on here has backed up their 'ignore' advice with that excuse for many years.

The excuse(s) for the 'ignore' advice are that the parking company, unless they have sufficient ownership/occupation rights to the land (and they very rarely, if ever, do) then they are not in a position to form a contract with the driver OR registered keeper and hence cannot pursue anyone in relation to a breach of such a contract, and the sum demanded is not representative of the landowners true losses in respect of the breach.

THAT'S why you should ignore it. Forget the new law (unless its a Hire or Lease vehicle).

as5606

Sorry, backed up isn't the right term. I have read quite a few parking eye threads on many forums this morning and it just seemed like the "can't prove who was driving" was quite a large part of the agrument for ignoring it.

I think the law came in on 1st October, not November but like you say, its seems to be more down to the fact that they don't have the authority to persue a fine if they have no ownership of the land.

ManxRed

All the new legislation does is allow then - under certain circumstances only - to pursue the registered keeper if they don't know who the driver was. If they DO know who the driver was then they cannot pursue the RK.

However the tickets are still legally unenforceable for all the other reasons (no land ownership rights, unenforceable contractual penalty, etc) so the new law doesn't help the PPCs at all, and doesn't make the tickets any more enforceable than they were before (i.e. not at all).

Of course the PPC will try and paint a different picture, but well, they would, wouldn't they?

daveyjp

"I wasn't the driver" was always a very weak defence and not necessary anyway. There are much stronger defences which are still as valid now as they were then.

Sirdan

as5606 wrote: »

I've recently had one - well, two within two weeks from parking eye, although the gym is writing them off due to not telling gym members to put their registration into the screen on the front desk.

I see many people who say to ignore them backed up with the excuse that they can't prove who was driving.

Parking Eye now include a flyer in with their scare monger ticket sheet which tells of a new law since 1st Nov I think that says that the registered keeper is automatically charged with driving if nobody comes forward with a different name.

Does this put a new slant to the IGNORE argument?

No an unenforceable penalty is still an unenforceable penalty ..regardless of who the PPC try to harass into paying it.

Why is it unenforceable ?

Either it's a disproportionate sanction (penalty) for a breach of contract = not legally valid =UNENFORCEABLE

OR

It is a sum of damages for trespass which exceeds any genuine pre estimate of damages/loss = not legally valid = UNENFORCEABLE

OR

It is an unfair term in a contract because it falls under this
"If a term has the effect of an unfair penalty, it will be regarded as such, and not as a 'core term'. Therefore a penalty cannot be made fair by transforming it into a provision requiring payment of a fee for exercising a contractual option."

= not legally valid = UNENFORCEABLE

Yes that's right even if the signs say you agree to pay £xx if you stay longer than x amount of time or some similar bollox , that is still UNENFORCEABLE because ,

"The Regulations are concerned with the intention and effects of terms, not just their mechanism"

and clearly charging £xx for overstaying a fixed time is intended to deter and or penalize.

As I have said before such "terms" could never be held to be a genuine offer because if that is the case I can park my car in the local ASDA for a fortnight while I go on holiday, for £60, as all the sign says is over 2 hours = £60.
The intention of the £60 charge is clear it is NOT a genuine offer it is a penalty !

On top of all that in most cases the PPC has no right to form a contract with the driver (VCS vs HMRC) and they certainly don't have any rights regarding trespass as it is not their land is it ??

as5606

Thanks Guys. There are over 100 members of the gym with many hundreds of tickets just been issued after they installed the system and didn't tell members the importance of a screen in reception to log their car registrations :T

They say they are wiping them off but we'll see what more letters we get from them. Bunch of idiots :mad:

Coupon-mad

as5606 wrote: »

I've recently had one - well, two within two weeks from parking eye, although the gym is writing them off due to not telling gym members to put their registration into the screen on the front desk.

I see many people who say to ignore them backed up with the excuse that they can't prove who was driving.

Parking Eye now include a flyer in with their scare monger ticket sheet which tells of a new law since 1st Nov I think that says that the registered keeper is automatically charged with driving if nobody comes forward with a different name.

Does this put a new slant to the IGNORE argument?

No 'new slant' - the only reason this is confusing you is because instead of looking at the current form threads you've landed on an ancient general one about Parking Eye which was started well before 1st October. Always look at the current forum (see my signature, you only ever have to click on the breadcrumb trail at the top when you find yourself on a random old thread, and you'll then be looking at the right forum, but up to date posts).

This 'new law' guff has been covered endless times and I last posted this yesterday, and the day before, and the day before that too.

In just nine weeks since 1st October, we've been constantly asked about the 'new law' (Protection of Freedoms Act if you want to search for other threads). It has been discussed to death TBH and you could have just searched the forum - but we always reply because it's important that people know that fake PCNs have not suddenly become magically enforceable!

So here's the same old summary yet again (with apologies again for boring the regulars here) :


The registered keeper doesn't 'have to' do anything at all. These fake PCNs are as unenforceable as they ever were - it's just that these scam firms are now able to aim their threatograms at the registered keeper if they are not informed who the driver was.

Big deal...the keeper can still make paper aeroplanes out of them as we always did, just as shown by Tim Cary, the expert Solicitor in this Watchdog clip!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAIcdi9niHA


A SUMMARY:

As far as private parking ticket scams are concerned, for a vehicle where you or family are the registered keeper*:


Any fake PCN issued for an incident up until 30th Sept 2012 = IGNORE IT.


Any fake PCN issued for an incident from 1st October 2012 onwards:

- if you were parked in Scotland or NI = IGNORE IT.

- if your 'ticket' is from a firm who are NOT members of the BPA AOS, or are one of five AOS members currently banned from getting data = IGNORE IT.


- if your 'ticket' is from a non-banned by the DVLA!! AOS member in England/Wales, there are 2 choices:

a) IGNORE IT, as ever, playing snap with the threatograms that match our sticky thread 'PPC letter chains' (near the top of this parking forum),

or

b) Appeal it with help from here in how to word it, and insist on a referral to the POPLA appeals service if it's not cancelled. Costs the PPC £32 plus, costs you nothing, it's not binding on you but it is binding on the PPC. If you do not win your appeal then revert to ignore mode.

This option is for those who want to fight back, cost the PPC money and test the POPLA system whilst also getting their PPC's tactics scrutinised; start by reading threads about POPLA. Recent posters have had great success where their case is clearly a very unfair ticket (such as disabled overstay or slight overlap of a white line, etc.) by using email and wording it not as an appeal but a complaint, and copying in the retailer/landowner to that complaint.

Finally, if anyone gets any fake PCN anywhere in the UK in a retail, cinema, fast food or Supermarket car park then even if you choose to ignore the scammers then COMPLAIN IN WRITING to the CEO of the company on site if you were a customer. Do not appeal to them, complain about this protection racket against their paying ex-customers.

HTH





* it is different for hire/lease/company cars as you could find the fake PCN paid for you! Here is a thread about what to do (whether AOS scheme member or not, you need to appeal to hook the PPC in your direction).

as5606

Sorry

Didn't see any after October 1st. Was googling it...not MSE searching it.

Thanks for your further response :beer:

Coupon-mad

as5606 wrote: »

Sorry

Didn't see any after October 1st. Was googling it...not MSE searching it.

Thanks for your further response :beer:

Yep, I guessed that was the case - just one more click finds the current threads on any forum and gets you off the random Google result thread!