Parking Eye Parking Charge Notice

in_nunhead

Thank you so much - I've just received the same thing - though mine is for £80, the date it happened was 18 June. Camera evidence and time I arrived and left - all true - but the car park said 30 mins free, I'm pretty sure and I was there 48 mins.

So I definitely should ignore, right? How can they get away with this? It's pretty abhorrent.

AltheHibby

Definitely ignore. Mrs theHibby has on 3 occasions with no more hassle than having decide whether to put the letters in the recycle bin as they are paper or the compost heap as they are c**p.

Coupon-mad

in_nunhead wrote: »

Thank you so much - I've just received the same thing - though mine is for £80, the date it happened was 18 June. Camera evidence and time I arrived and left - all true - but the car park said 30 mins free, I'm pretty sure and I was there 48 mins.

So I definitely should ignore, right? How can they get away with this? It's pretty abhorrent.

Yep, it all fizzles out if you just ignore the whole scam. Have a look at what to ignore here on this thread showing pics of the letters:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/....php?t=2214803

And have you watched the Watchdog clip? See it here:

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

You'll need to watch it to learn important info - namely how to make paper aeroplanes out of all those letters!

curlydeb

Bit concerned parking eye tried to charge me £60 for 28 mins overstay no option to pay the access time and I did not mean to overstay.

Anyway I have ignored the letters as 'advised' then received a Roxburghe debt collectors letter - charges now up to £177.00 - who are threatening to send the case to their solicitors Graham White -

Interestingly and concerning is the final paragraph of this communication states "We are fully aware of anecdotal information being presented via the internet and on various websites and you may well feel this guidance is worth following. We strongly urge you to seek independent legal advice rather than rely on these opinions, and we would respectively suggest you refer to the Civil Procedure Rules 31*, and more specifically parts 31.16 and 31.17

Just looking for reassurance in respect of this last paragraph and an appropriate way to respond to stop the communications, if there is one!

trisontana

The usual garbage. Those Civil Procedure Rules don't apply in the Small Claims Court

curlydeb

Thanks do you think I should contact someone (could link them to this link) and pay the overstay - there was no option at the machine to do this.

Stephen_Leak

All the car park owner (CPO) can claim from a driver in damages for any alleged breach of contract is what they’ve lost as a result. If it’s in a free car park or the driver paid, this is £0.00. Demanding more has been judged to be unreasonable and therefore an unfair contract penalty under the terms of The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997, which is not legally enforceable. See Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd. vs. New Garage & Motor Co. Ltd., House of Lords, 1914 and countless cases since.

Part 31.1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules says, “This Part applies to all claims except a claim on the small claims track”. Parking charge cases would be heard in the “Small Claims” part of the County Courts.

But, there are also now two recent landmark court cases, VCS Parking Control vs. Ronald Ibbotson, S!!!!horpe, 2012 and VCS Parking Control vs. HM Revenue & Customs, Upper Tax Tribunal, 2012. In both cases, the judges ruled that only the car park owner can take drivers to court. The Upper Tax Tribunal is a court of record, equivalent to the High Court, and therefore its judgement sets a legal precedent.

What should I do now?

We don’t condone not paying or overstaying in a pay car park. If you owe the CPO the original charge, then you ought to write to the CPO, offering this in “full and final settlement”. In any event, you should write to the CPO, advising them that they are "jointly and severally liable" for the actions of their agents, the PPC, and that any further actions by either of them would be regarded as harassment under the terms of The Protection from Harassment Act 1997. This ought to make the CPO call off the PPC and, hopefully, realise the potential cost of doing business with a PPC.

Don’t appeal to the PPC. They always reject them. What’s in it for them to let anyone off?

Continue to ignore everything you get from the PPC and their aliases. It does seem counter-intuitive to deal with something by ignoring it. Eventually, they will run out of empty threats, and stop throwing good money after bad.

PS. From another thread ...

ManxRed wrote: »

Graham White Solicitors are under investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority for sending hundreds if not thousands of these letters out ... without ever putting a single one in front of a judge.

curlydeb

ok thanks very much need to find who the car park owners are and send them £2

miles3659

My original post was back in May.
I haven't been back as I followed the advice that most people gave which was to ignore everything sent to me.

I've had the first charge notice, the second one telling me that as I hadn't responded the charge was up to £90 per incident and I've just had the third which is from Roxburghe Debt Collectors telling me the charge is now £177 per incident.

Without talking down to me (please) I'm still tying to decide on my best course of action (I will under no circumstances be paying any money!)
1 : ignore them completely, no response
2 : send a response denying liability

It seems like #1 risks someone saying I haven't taken appropriate action to defend myself - why wouldn't I write back denying liability?

But #2 risks them thinking I'm taking them seriously.

Views?

ManxRed

There's pros and cons to both approaches. But there's no right or wrong answer.

1. Easiest option, it won't ever get to court so being seen to do something to deny liability is not necessary. The onus would be on them to prove you had done something wrong. This might be tricky for them to say the least!

2. You do risk getting extra attention, but equally they could just give up. Its up to you. As long as any communication is carefully worded so that you don't inadvertently incriminate anyone, or admit liability for anything without realising you're doing it, then fine.

If you go for 2, I reiterate be very careful how you word it.

My recommendation would still be to ignore.