Disgusting. ParkingEye notice for having dinner at Cheshunt Marrirot

theLongRun

I had some friends staying at Cheshunt Marriot Hotel last week. I went to visit them and had dinner with them at the hotel. I was there for about 1 1/2 hours.

The last time I had dinner there was about 2 years ago, and back then there was no fee for parking at the hotel so I was completely unaware of parking fee and also it was pitch dark when I arrived so I didn't see any notices that have been set up since then.

Anyway, today I got this Penalty Charge Notice from ParkingEye saying I owe them £60 if I paid by within 14 days, or £100 within 28 days.

I mean, having to pay parking fee for having dinner at the hotel? Really? This is sickening on Marriott's part.

Now I am wondering what to do. All the advice on this forum tells me that I should not pay, that penalty charge notice from ParkingEye is not enforceable. But I also read somewhere that the law change in Oct 2012 means that I am obliged to notify ParkingEye who the driver was and I need to pay the money. (I am not going to call it "fine" here because I read here that apparently private companies cannot issue "fines")

Any advice?

esmerobbo

If your the keeper then simply ignore it, the "new law" lets them pester the keeper, however Parkingeye did this anyway.

I would however contact Marriots telling them that you wont be using them again!

The_Slithy_Tove

theLongRun wrote: »

Now I am wondering what to do. All the advice on this forum tells me that I should not pay, that penalty charge notice from ParkingEye is not enforceable. But I also read somewhere that the law change in Oct 2012 means that I am obliged to notify ParkingEye who the driver was and I need to pay the money.

Really? If you read that, then what you read was completely and utterly WRONG. The advice on this forum also tells you the Protection of Freedoms Act makes no real difference, and the advice is still to ignore.

There is a lot of misinformation around concerning the Protection of Freedoms Act. This is largely pedalled by the private parking companies in an attempt to add some kind of legitimacy to their charges, not helped by sloppy and lazy journalism which regurgitates what the parking companies say without checking if it's true or not.

Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 introduces the concept of Keeper Liability for private parking charges if the registered keeper fails to divulge who the driver was. That is all.

• It does not make parking charges enforceable (or any more enforceable than they were before, which, on the whole is not enforceable at all)

• It does not require the registered keeper to name the driver on request - there is no obligation. If the keeper fails to name the driver, the "liability" (such as it is) reverts to the keeper (see previous point). If the driver and keeper are the same person, then there is no difference anyway.

• It does not set out any kind of statutory framework for parking charges, they are still based on contract law or trespass, and in that respect nothing has changed

• It does not define the wording that must be used to make parking charge notices "legal", "enforceable" or "valid". The Act sets out wording and points that must be included in order for the parking company to be able to apply keeper liability, but using all the correct words does not make the notice any more legally enforceable than it was before (see point 1)

The only thing the Protection of Freedoms Act does is remove from the registered keeper the defence of "I was not the driver." That was always a weak argument. There are far stronger arguments which make such parking charges invalid, all of which still stand.

Stroma

Parking eye also can't issue penalty charge notices either, only a council can do that. You need to ignore this completely as they are just chancers after your money. They won't take you to court and the boys won't turn up at the door.

You sound annoyed enough so direct your ire at the hotel, you are a customer there demand that they get this charge dropped. Don't get fobbed off by them.

muckybutt

To be honest although we normally say ignore I would complain to Marriots, if they have the gumption they will cancel it for you.

If Marriots dont cancel it then just carry on ignoring it.

Guys_Dad

muckybutt wrote: »

To be honest although we normally say ignore I would complain to Marriots, if they have the gumption they will cancel it for you.

If Marriots dont cancel it then just carry on ignoring it.

Not sure they would cancel it.

Their web site proudly boasts.

Parking
On-site parking, fee: 1 GBP hourly, 3 GBP daily
150 spaces available

Agree with ignore though.

adebov

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Their web site proudly boasts.

Parking
On-site parking, fee: 1 GBP hourly, 3 GBP daily

Well at least that will help, as it tells us the actual charge which should be payable.... £2
Hard to see how PE could possibly convince a county court their inflated parking charge is anything but an illegal unfair contract penalty, when the land owner publicly states their actual "out of pocket" losses (should people not bother to pay for parking) :rotfl:

Doesn't really seem worth going to court for £2

Still; at least it shows PE are still in business.
I was getting worried for them :rotfl:it's been a month since their last unenforcible letter telling me I had 14 days to pay £100 (for over-staying in a free car park) to avoid further action.

Coupon-mad

theLongRun wrote: »

Now I am wondering what to do. All the advice on this forum tells me that I should not pay, that penalty charge notice from ParkingEye is not enforceable. But I also read somewhere that the law change in Oct 2012 means that I am obliged to notify ParkingEye who the driver was and I need to pay the money. (I am not going to call it "fine" here because I read here that apparently private companies cannot issue "fines")

Any advice?

The new law doesn't change much, forgive me for the slight rant in the first post on this thread but we are asked this every day even though it's here and on lots of other threads too:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4360185

Pepipoo's summary of the legality and unenforceability of a fake PCN issued when the landowner has made no loss (except £2 I suppose):

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=46975

Complain about it but don't bother with the PPC. Just laugh at each letter as they will match these:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2329119

It's just a matter of playing snap with the letters but why not send a copy of each one with a snotty letter to the manager of the Hotel each time one arrives? Show him/her what is driving business away, they will NOT know about the letters I can tell you - they will have fallen for the spiel of Parking Eye's top suit pretending they can 'manage the car park professionally'.

= protection racket, no more, no less.

AnnieO1234

As I now have a log in rather than just reading the forums, whilst I agree that in this case the driver was using the facilities and spending money - therefore Marriot/the PPC have only lost the parking value, what about in the situation when a driver uses a car park and then wanders off? I'm guessing the meal at the Marriot didn't come cheap does anyone ever factor this in when they're talking about losses before a court???

I don't know how much the PPC/hotel or whoever would make from the ticket anyway, or if it'd ever get to court, but to say that they can only claim for the cost of the parking seems a little disingenous to be honest.

Coupon-mad

AnnieO1234 wrote: »

As I now have a log in rather than just reading the forums, whilst I agree that in this case the driver was using the facilities and spending money - therefore Marriot/the PPC have only lost the parking value, what about in the situation when a driver uses a car park and then wanders off? I'm guessing the meal at the Marriot didn't come cheap does anyone ever factor this in when they're talking about losses before a court???

I don't know how much the PPC/hotel or whoever would make from the ticket anyway, or if it'd ever get to court, but to say that they can only claim for the cost of the parking seems a little disingenous to be honest.

The point is that the PPC made no loss whatsoever.

And the Marriott just 'lost' £2 but you could argue that it's up to them to communicate the terms of the car park very clearly to people; customers who often park in the dark of course, for an evening meal! There need to be illuminated signs at the entrance to and around the car park, and when signing in for your table you should be asked 'do you mind me asking if you arrived by car, have you paid and displayed because the car park now has a small charge'. Or their could be a little card on each table to inform diners of this and giving them 20 mins grace to go and pay.

That would be reasonable. But that would mean the PPC wouldn't make money and the Marriott have obviously been fooled by the spiel of the PPC that they can deal with all their parking issues...in fact the PPC are the 'parking issue'. The Marriott will have NO CLUE about all the misleading debt collector threatograms their customers are going to be subjected to by this parasite.

And PPCs never do Court anyway so it's not really worth considering. Certainly in this case no more than £2 is potentially owed and if it wasn't made clear then it's an unfair term anyway.

esmerobbo

AnnieO1234 wrote: »

cost of the parking seems a little disingenous to be honest.

Maybe but that's all they lost so that's all they can claim. You cant factor in what a person parking may spend in the hotel.

I don't think you will find anyone here agreeing that you can park in a hotel car park and wander off somewhere else.