Parking eye do they go away?

Megamine

I received a parking charge notice issued 22/6/12 I had parked parked 2 hours 14 minutes when notices said I could only park 2 hours. My husband says that the Parking notices around were applying conditions like a contract and that I broke the contract. I was therefore about to pay the charge when I found this forum, and have read much of the messages re Parking eye,. There are lots of people saying ignore the charge notice and they will go away. But I haven't read any comments from anyone who said that they did ignore the parking charge notice and that Parking Eye did go away?? Has anyone ever got to the point of no more threatening letters???

Sgt_Pepper_2

Idle threats, they will give up.

Stephen_Leak

Lots of people have, and not just with Parking Eye.

Firstly, the legal stuff.

Only councils, the police, train operators and Transport for London can impose legally enforceable fines or penalties. A private parking company (PPC) or an individual can't. Even PPCs call their tickets “Parking Charge Notices”, not “Penalty Charge Notices”. In law, they’re called “speculative invoices”.

Any warning signs are usually so badly positioned and worded, that they won’t have created a fair and legally binding deemed contract between the car park owner and a driver entering the car park in the first place. See The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997 and Excel Parking Services vs. Cutts, Stockport, 2011, 1SE02759, the Peel Centre case.

All the car park owner (CPO) can claim from a driver in damages for any breach of contract is what they’ve lost as a result. If this is a free car park or they 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.

There are also now two very recent court cases, VCS Parking Control vs. Ronald Ibbotson, S!!!!horpe, 2012 and HM Revenue & Customs vs. VCS Parking Control, Upper Tax Tribunal, 2012. In both cases, the judges found 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 do owe the CPO anything, then you ought to write to them, offering this in “full and final settlement”.

In any event, you ought to advise the CPO that they are "jointly and severally liable" for the actions of their agents, the PPC, and that any further actions have been judged to constitute harassment under the terms of The Protection from Harassment Act 1997. That ought to make the CPO call off the PPC and, hopefully, realise the potential cost of doing business with them.

Don’t appeal to the PPC. They always reject them. What’s in it for them to let anyone off? Actually, there is something in it for them: information. They need to know the identity of the driver of the vehicle involved at the time, because that’s who the alleged contract was with. If they don’t know who the driver was, they have to make do with chasing the registered keeper.

With windscreen notices, an appeal letter will tell them your name and address, and maybe who was driving at the time. If they don’t know who the driver was, they have to buy the details of registered keeper from the DVLA. With postal notices, they’ve done this already. But they still need to know the identity of the driver.

They sometimes say that they have the right to ask for this information. This doesn’t mean that you have to tell them.

However, even if you’ve written and told them who the driver was, it doesn’t make their actions any less unlawful. It just means that instead of harassing the registered keeper, they can now harass the driver.

What will they do to me?

The PPC, then a debt collector and then a solicitor will send you a series of letters. The debt collector and solicitor are usually also the PPC, but using different headed paper. These letters will threaten you with every kind of financial and legal unpleasantness imaginable, to intimidate you into paying.

But, they can't actually do anything, for the same reason that a Nigerian e-mail scammer couldn't sue anyone who didn’t pay them.

What should I do then?

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. Can this thread be transferred to the Parking board, please?

mikey72

Stephen_Leak wrote: »

...In any event, you ought to advise the CPO that they are "jointly and severally liable" for the actions of their agents, the PPC, and that any further actions have been judged to constitute harassment under the terms of The Protection from Harassment Act 1997<font color="black"><font face="Verdana">. ...........

I keep asking about this, you're the first that has said it's already been judged. What case was it, and in which court of record? If the op makes a claim, they'll certainly want to quote it, if it's true. What was the payout, as a guide as to what to ask for?

muckybutt

mikey72 wrote: »

I keep asking about this, you're the first that has said it's already been judged. What case was it, and in which court of record? If the op makes a claim, they'll certainly want to quote it, if it's true. What was the payout, as a guide as to what to ask for?

I think give them fa has had a result from a harassment claim, theres also a case from a customer and british gas http://www.out-law.com/page-9826

mikey72

muckybutt wrote: »

I think give them fa has had a result from a harassment claim, theres also a case from a customer and british gas http://www.out-law.com/page-9826

I don't think the BG case compared with being sent the first request for payment from a PPC and lodging a claim and then winning in court for being sent a second letter. BG agreed beforehand the customer didn't owe anything, but failed to inform their own debt collectors. I doubt a PPC would claim you didn't owe them anything. I read GTFA's report on his harressment claim on pepipoo, but got confused over where he is to lodge a claim in the uk, and alledgedly if it ever went to court, and I couldn't find any info on the payment. But that doesn't answer my question either way. SL stated "that any further actions have been judged to constitute harassment" So I asked him, where has any further action been judged already in a court of record? (I asked the question on the parking forum, and not had any links there either)

muckybutt

mikey72 wrote: »

, but got confused over where he is to lodge a claim in the uk,

SL stated "that any further actions have been judged to constitute harassment"

Harassment claims are made in civil courts, have a google of harassment by letter claims there are loads, its going to be the same gist as getting threatograms from ppc's.

I_was_just_wondering

Stephen_Leak wrote: »

Any warning signs are usually so badly positioned and worded, that they won’t have created a fair and legally binding deemed contract between the car park owner and a driver entering the car park in the first place. See The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997 and Excel Parking Services vs. Cutts, Stockport, 2011, 1SE02759, the Peel Centre case.

All the car park owner (CPO) can claim from a driver in damages for any breach of contract is what they’ve lost as a result. If this is a free car park or they 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.

There are also now two very recent court cases, VCS Parking Control vs. Ronald Ibbotson, S!!!!horpe, 2012 and HM Revenue & Customs vs. VCS Parking Control, Upper Tax Tribunal, 2012. In both cases, the judges found 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.

Hi Stephen

I'm very intrigued by your post. Having looked at the cases you mention. My layman's conclusion is that as long as:
- the car park operators get their signage and contracts right, and
- the car park operators know who the driver is

they can legitimately charge people like the OP £100, and would probably succeed in a court case.

For example if the car park mentioned by the OP had very clear signs saying something like:

Car Parking Charges
up to 2 hours: Free
Over 2 hours: £100

and parking company has a thorough contract with the landowner...

then the parking company can legitimately issue a "Parking Charge Notice" (which is essentially an invoice) for £100 to a driver who parks for over 2 hours. And assuming the parking company knows who the driver is, the parking company would probably win in court.

Is that your conclusion as well?

I conclude this because:

Excel Parking Services vs. Cutts - Excel lost because their signs were not clear.

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd. vs. New Garage is not relevant because nobody is seeking damages in the scenario above.

VCS Parking Control vs. Ronald Ibbotson - VCS lost because of a missing clause in their contract with the landowner (I guess they have now added that clause to all their contracts)

I guess the big weak link from the car park operators perspective is that usually they cannot be sure who the driver is - which deters them from court action (unless the driver 'owns up' in an appeal letter, or similar).

I should stress that I am not involved in the parking business, and I've never received a Parking Charge Notice - but I'm interested in case I ever have problems in the future.

Iwjw

andy13

2 other things to wonder about.
after VCS v HMRC the PPC needs proprietary rights not just a clause.
The other thing you don't mention is penalties are not allowed in contract law as Stephen mentioned.

EXCEL PARKING SERVICES VS MS HETHERINGTON-JAKEMAN
Ms Hetherington-Jakeman accepted that she was the driver and did not deny that she was aware of the terms and conditions of using the car park. She simply said that the fines amounted to an unlawful penalty clause which the judge accepted. There was no financial loss to the car park owner in terms of parking fees as none were applicable.

notts_phil

I have had loads of parking eye letters and ignored all the letters.

Victoria_Park

I had a Parking Charge Notice from Parking Eye for staying more than 1 hr 15minutes at McDonalds. I sent an appeal by email before I read this forum. In the appeal I disclosed the below, all of which is true. Does anyone have advice on whether I should ignore them from here? Thanks

"I would like to appeal the above parking fine. The reason for my
appeal is on compassionate grounds. Following the death of a friend,
myself and another friend met at McDonalds on June 18th. My friend
bought our refreshments at McDonalds before we met and travelled to the visit the family at their home near by in one car.
I had not seen any signs advising of parking restrictions, however, I
must admit my mind was pre-occupied with the loss at this time.
I will be donating funds to the Ade Foundation (the Diabetic research
charity set up in memory)"