Parking eye do they go away?

Stephen_Leak

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??

If there was at least one free space in the car park during the 15 minutes involved, then your overstay could not have caused any of the retailers any loss.

Even if the car park was full for the period of your overstay, any loss would be purely speculative. You cannot claim speculative loss as damages for a breach of contract.

If you still consider yourself liable, then you should pay the retailers. I respect your decision. But, how much to which ones?

PS. And don't call me Shirley.

ManxRed

There were absolutely no other spaces? Cars were entering the car park and having to turn around and drive back out again?

Only IF the above two questions have an answer of 'yes' would you then go on to think about how much money those drivers MIGHT have spent, or maybe they would have been browsers / window shoppers, or, I don't know.

So you owe them errrr... whatever these cars that drove out of the car park MIGHT have spent in 15 mins.

Good luck with THAT court claim, lads.

rdr

parking eye gave up on me after two letters

geoffky

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??

So can i be invoiced for window shopping? go away you fool..

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.

Stephen_Leak

curlydeb wrote: »

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.

This looks familiar. Have you posted this elsewhere?

curlydeb

just on the parking eye thread on MSE ?

dw85

curlydeb wrote: »

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.

I seem to remember reading a similar post...about their selective use of civil procedure rule parts.....im pretty sure that out of context, they read in their favour. If you read the rest of the rules, it doesn't.

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.

Coupon-mad

curlydeb wrote: »

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.

As you went to the trouble of typing out some of the template letter why not just copy & paste some of it into Google? You would have found lots of threads with your letter mentioned. It's nothing new.

IGNORE IT AND IGNORE 'GRAHAM WHITE' LETTERS - THEY ALSO COME FROM THE SAME ROXBURGHE OFFICE IN FACT.

You are not liable to pay and you must not 'appeal' either. This is a private company with an unsolicited invoice, dressed up to impersonate a parking ticket.

Tick off the threatening letters Here.

Watchdog clip with expert Solicitor's opinion here.

Barrister's opinion here.



HTH