Husband parked at Surrey Quays for too long - what to do

loverofwine

Hi

I've just received a letter from Parking Eye saying that my husband overstayed his welcome at Surrey Quays

I understand from reading MSE that this is a private operator but what I don't understand is if it is enforceable and if not what I should do. He'd never been there before and the car park was apparently not full at any time but that aside he did outstay the official four hours albeit unknowingly.

I'm just wondering what I should do. Do I write and appeal (and on what grounds) or just ignore their letters?

Thanks

HardWorker2010_2

Check the many threads on this board and you will see that PE are powerless scammers.

Ignore them.

taffy056

If its a pay&display car park he technically owes the sum not paid for, so an overstay of 1 hour would cost circa £1 or whatever the rate is. But as parking eye are just interested in the penalty/scam charge they have given, you got no chance of them accepting a couple of quid.

The best and easiest advice providing you are the registered keeper of the vehicle is to ignore them and their agents completely, they do not do court for the most part, and everytime they do they get a bloody nose. There are other things that could be done, but it takes time and effort, if those are in short supply do I suggest and ignore.

RENEGADE_2

He wasn't watching Millwall was he? That's Surrey Quays I think!

His invoice is 100% unenforceable which means that even if ParkingEye tried court, they would lose because there is no way they could prove their claim to be losses from the vehicle being parked on the compound, they can only claim, "that's what the signage says" but that does not stand up in court if its conditions are unlawful which indeed they are aspiring to exact such a huge figure from you.

If you ignore them, they go away after three letters including your first which you have. But since we've stablished they cannot do anything to you in the first place, it doesn't matter if they spend the next five years chasing their fee because they'll just be jumping up and down fruitlessly. Order your husband to ignore them!

loverofwine

But what I don't understand is that my DH did in fact contravene their contract.

Will ignoring really mean they go away? I've been looking through threads and this seems unproven (or perhaps I am being dense and looking for the wrong thing)

Thanks

RENEGADE_2

Your post came in whilst I was typing mine, so I'll let you read it - plus Taffy's explanation.

taffy056

loverofwine wrote: »

But what I don't understand is that my DH did in fact contravene their contract.

Will ignoring really mean they go away? I've been looking through threads and this seems unproven (or perhaps I am being dense and looking for the wrong thing)

Thanks

Yes but as parking eye have no legal right to offer parking, or make a claim its a little academic what unenforceable rule he supposedly broke, look at this judgement below

Link to decision

Firstly, I recommend reading the entire judgement as this puts the decision very clearly in context.

The appeal tribunal held:

1. VCS did not have any right to occupy land or to pursue any action in trespass (which is what VCS had claimed they were doing).
2. Such payments they received by way of "Parking Charge Notices" were not therefore a payment by way of damages and were not therefore exempt from VAT.
3. That on the basis of their standard agreement with landowners there could have been no contract formed between VCS and the motorist because its limited rights to access to the land did not extend to being able to offer the right to park.
4. The signs used by VCS cannot have effect because they have no right in law to make any offer to park in the first instance.
5. Any contract to park could only be formed between the landowner and the motorist
6. Any parking charges collected by VCS would therefore be, in effective, damages in breach of contract or trespass but because they were retained by VCS they constituted a standard-rated consideration and VAT was therefore payable against them.

RENEGADE_2

loverofwine wrote: »

But what I don't understand is that my DH did in fact contravene their contract.

There is no contract. The courts make it absolutely clear that predrafted documents such as their signs which are not open to negotiation by all parties involved are no more valid than if I were to write on my parking space, "unauthorised vehicles parked here will be set on fire".

loverofwine

Thank you all - DH is a lawyer (not any sort of useful law of course) and keen to stick by the letter. I am keen not to give these sods £80 for nuffink!

RENEGADE_2

loverofwine wrote: »

Thank you all - DH is a lawyer (not any sort of useful law of course) and keen to stick by the letter. I am keen not to give these sods £80 for nuffink!

No no no! I beg of you to stop him. I realise he specialises in a separate area but if he were to familiarise himself with County Courts, moreover Contract and Property Law which apply here, he'll come across things such as the Unfair Contract Terms act and others which ratify existing protocols dating back centuries all of which guranatee a citizen's right to a hearing before any money need be handed over. They also outlaw arbitrary fines from one private enterprise to another and what he has is nothing more than a wild demand.

taffy056

loverofwine wrote: »

Thank you all - DH is a lawyer (not any sort of useful law of course) and keen to stick by the letter. I am keen not to give these sods £80 for nuffink!

Just to be clear here, the upper tax tribunal case I linked to above is binding on lower courts