Parking Eye - I wasn't driving

tabashir

Hi all,

I recently got a parking charge notice from Parking Eye - the same format as the 'updated' one in the letters thread.

I am the registered keeper but I don't use the car to get to work. I can absolutely prove that I was not the driver and in fact have a picture I can attach to an email showing I was at my place of work (30+ mins away) smack bang in the time window that they have recorded. I could, if necessary get statements from about 20 people that would have seen me there at work all day too if it was ever needed for court.

Everything on this forum tells me to just ignore it. However Martin's advice on the main site says that if you were not driving at the time then to use the template to respond as such. Is it worth it? I was thinking if the 'appeal' actually worked, would provide one of those "rarer than hen's teeth" talking points!

What does everyone reckon?

ManxRed

There's no right or wrong answer, and there's pros and cons to each approach.

Ignore: They ought to go away, but you will have to endure a certain number of junk letters with lots of scary legal language in them first. By ignoring you also deprive the PPC of any information about you that they might twist to their own advantage.

Write: They MIGHT just cancel your ticket, although they MIGHT equally think you are taking them seriously, and single you out for even more attention than if you'd ignored them. They might use something you have inadvertently written against you.

I think overall, ignore is the easiest option, but its up to you really.

27col

It doesn't matter if you were driving or not and you don't have to "prove" anything. Others will be along shortly, tell you to ignore all correspondence from them.

bondy_lad

just ignore, they will then go away quicker, if you contact they will beliewve rightly/wrongly that they have you hooked, so for me ignore this shower of what i trod in walking my dog earlier today.

Stephen_Leak

Out of interest, are you saying that the car wasn't where PE say it was, or that it was but you weren't in the driving seat?

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.

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 recent 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 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 by them would be regarded as 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.

tabashir

Thanks for the replies all.

Stephen - Not denying it was a car that I am the registered owner of - it was clearly photographed including the number plates. It was a free car park.

However it was not me driving as I was at work and can prove that fact. I can easily ignore any letters as I know that they have no claim against me personally so they will be just wasting time, was just interested in whether it was worth a single shot (with proof) in order to see if we could all get a glimpse of the "lesser-spotted successful appeal"

ManxRed

You COULD send the letter, and state clearly that you consider any future correspondence, other than confirmation that the ticket has been cancelled, as harassment and you will consider taking appropriate action against them and the car park owner [do you know who this would be?].

Then cc it to the car park owner.

That way, if they do continue to hassle you, you would have every right to issue a claim for harassment.

Just another thought.

Stephen_Leak

ManxRed wrote: »

You COULD send the letter, and state clearly that you consider any future correspondence, other than confirmation that the ticket has been cancelled, as harassment and you will consider taking appropriate action against them and the car park owner [do you know who this would be?].

Then cc it to the car park owner.

That way, if they do continue to hassle you, you would have every right to issue a claim for harassment.

Just another thought.

Actually, the car park owner (CPO) is the primary target. They are "jointly and severally liable" for the actions of their agents, the PPC, and that any further actions by them have been judged to be 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.

tabashir

Think I will go with the general consensus that it is not worth writing and letting them know they have a live one. Plus they get to waste even more money and time before finding out I have a defence

Thanks all. This really is a fantastic source of both information and support.

LincolnshireYokel

tabashir wrote: »

Think I will go with the general consensus that it is not worth writing and letting them know they have a live one. Plus they get to waste even more money and time before finding out I have a defence

Thanks all. This really is a fantastic source of both information and support.

Yes, absolutely.

You know you wernt driving

We know you wernt driving.

But PArking eye have noi idea who was driving, they're stuffed without such information, and its impossible for them to find out, no matter how much money they waste trying.

Ergo ignoring is by far and away the most satisfying option.

Its like playing hide and seek with them but neglecting to tell them they are the only one playing.

HardWorker2010_2

LincolnshireYokel wrote: »

Yes, absolutely.

You know you wernt driving

We know you wernt driving.

But PArking eye have noi idea who was driving, they're stuffed without such information, and its impossible for them to find out, no matter how much money they waste trying.

Ergo ignoring is by far and away the most satisfying option.

Its like playing hide and seek with them but neglecting to tell them they are the only one playing.

Love it! :T