Parking eye do they go away?

muckybutt

Victoria_Park wrote: »

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)"

Firstly sorry to hear about your loss, secondly - yes continue to ignore them, you only need to respond if they send you official stamped court papers....which they wont

bondy_lad

parking eye are a joke, simply SCAM merchants who issue FAKE tickets, they can be safely IGNORED, eventually they will give up and go away with their SCAM, when they realise you are not going to pay them.they can only issue aPARKING charge notice=not legit/not enforceable/fake/con/ etc etc,,only a PENALTY charge notice is legal , issued by police/traffic warden/local council/courts,,,, so there you go jobs a real good un,, time limit that they will stop, who knows, on average 6 months maybee a litle more, but do not worry,its a SCAM,so nout will/ can happen as a result of this.

Stephen_Leak

My post is aimed at helping harassed newbies, which is my primary purpose on here. I try to keep it simple. It's a work in progress.

It does now seem that most, if not all, harassment claims may have been settled out of court. Of course, this begs the question why, if the PPCs are so confident of the lawfulness of their actions. I've amended that sentence accordingly.

Dunlop vs. New Garage is the pivotal case in UK contract law for unfair terms and penalties. Of course, in a free car park scenario, anything the PPC claims is excessive and unfair, as neither they nor the car park owner have suffered any loss.

Even with a sign in front of every parking bay, a parking charge of £100 could be judged to be excessive and unfair. IIRC, one such judgement was for a charge of £85.

I choose to mention the second Ibbotson case, as everyone just quotes the HMRC appeal. However, I feel that, if it hadn't been for Mr. Ibbotson's preparedness, which enabled him to defend VCS' deliberately late claim, we would not have had Judge McIlwane's judgement just before the HMRC appeal.

Stephen_Leak

Victoria_Park wrote: »

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)"

My condolenses for your loss.

However, I doubt that the response from the PPC will contain such sentiments. I suspect that you will receive the standard appeal rejection reply.

PS. If so, a similar e-mail (with a copy of the PPCs reply) to McDonalds' CEO might elicit a better response.

Victoria_Park

Stephen_Leak wrote: »

My condolenses for your loss.

However, I doubt that the response from the PPC will contain such sentiments. I suspect that you will receive the standard appeal rejection reply.

Thank-you. Having read posts on the forum I suspect a rejection reply too. From what I've read only the driver can be subject to their charge, therefore what I mean is, by replying and providing the information I gave, have I given too much detail to now ignore them?

ManxRed

No, there are more serious hurdles for them than knowing who the driver was. The biggest is that under a recent ruling in an upper tribunal, it was ruled that the parking company must hold sufficient proprietary interest in the land (effectively, own it) in order to form a contract with a driver. Odds on that Parking Eye don't own McDonald's car park.

Also, the sum charged must represent actual losses suffered as a result of your overstay. 15 mins in a free car park = £0.00 of actual losses incurred. The sum they are trying to extract from you could be demonstrated to be a contractual penalty - unenforceable under contract law.

Stephen_Leak

Victoria_Park wrote: »

Thank-you. Having read posts on the forum I suspect a rejection reply too. From what I've read only the driver can be subject to their charge, therefore what I mean is, by replying and providing the information I gave, have I given too much detail to now ignore them?

In a word, no.

As in my post above, 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.

Megamine

The car park I parked in had a lot of clear signs and half a dozen retailers. Surely Parking Eye can claim that my overstay meant 15 minutes lost revenue for the retailers??

vax2002

Stooge alert !

Half_way

Megamine wrote: »

The car park I parked in had a lot of clear signs and half a dozen retailers. Surely Parking Eye can claim that my overstay meant 15 minutes lost revenue for the retailers??

Lost revenue for what exactly? standing in a que at the tills, or from customers not returning to that retail park due to excessive parking fees and taking their hard earned cash elsewhere - one more thing was the car park full with not one space remaining? could this be proven either way?