ParkingEye charge

jkdd77

Whilst there are doubtless exceptions (notably employers' cars, hire cars, universities), my general advice remains to ignore PPC invoices, (and subsequently to ignore everything except stamped court papers), for the following reasons:

1) Costs on the 'small claims track' are normally strictly capped unless one party has behaved grossly unreasonably, and there have been no reported cases at all where a motorist has won their case yet had to pay the PPCs costs (if a PPC did win, it would probably recover its costs regardless);

If one is looking for "abuse of the court system", one might look at Parking Eye repeatedly filing MCOL claims only to fold at the first sign of a defence, or another PPC being warned to "bring a toothbrush in future" if they continued to bring such vexatious claims. It does not arise from a RK ignoring a speculative request for money.

2) The very narrow grounds of appeal at POPLA are specified by the BPA, and POPLA has shown that it is manifestly biased towards PPCs and its BPA paymasters.

In particular, it has repeatedly taken claims for "breach of contract" by PPCs (appealed as such), and has unilaterally decided, without being asked, that they were actually claims for enforcing the supposed "contract", even, in one case rejecting an appeal where the motorist was parked in their own leased space;

I would not want to give POPLA undue credibility by appealing to them, nor would I want to waste my time in preparing such an "appeal".

3) Accordingly, it is profoundly unlikely that a judge would seek to penalise a motorist for failure to appeal to such a biased body;

4) Appealing to POPLA is a waste of time and effort, and costs the PPC £27 + VAT, which they may then subsequently seek to recover from the motorist as part of their court costs, (albeit that such a claim ought not to succeed);

5) Appealing to POPLA gives one's defence away, which gives the chance for the PPC to attack any weak points, and confirms to the PPC that their intended target is both "live" and "rattled";

6) If the PPC "wins" at POPLA, they will be more motivated to pursue the case through to county court, especially as they have already paid the POPLA fee, and as the BPA is strongly pushing its members to chase such "POPLA upheld" invoices in court;

7) If a case does get to court, then there is a real risk (as raised by a solicitor on Pepipoo) that a clueless judge may attach wholly undue weight to the BPA-approved POPLA "assessment" in determining the merits of the case;

I agree with a Pepipoo 'eagle' when he suggested that the courts would be extremely slow to conclude that a motorist had entered into a valid contract to pay a punitive sum to park. If a "contractual charge" is clearly intended to be a penalty charge, then it will most likely be interpreted as such.

If the £100 (or whatever) is truly intended to be a genuine contractual charge, then why is there is no payment mechanism made available on the spot?

This is all the more so since it is typically not clear what exactly the motorist is getting in return- if they pay the "contractual sum" of £100 to park, does that mean they can keep their car there forever- in short, the supposed contractual term is vague and unclear.

Furthermore, a punitive "contractual charge" would probably also be held to be "onerous" within the meaning of Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd [1987] EWCA,
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1987/6.html
http://wikijuris.net/cases/interfoto_v_stiletto_1989
in which Dillon LJ, supported by Bingham LJ, said that a ‘particularly onerous or unusual’ term must have special notice in order to be enforceable.

In some (most?) cases, the PPC is merely the agent, and lacks sufficient interest in the land to offer a contract to park or to bring related litigation, and landowners such as supermarkets (etc) are hardly likely to want to sue their own customers.

Schedule 4 only makes the RK liable to the same extent that the driver would have been liable- so if the driver is not liable because the invoice is a penalty charge (as most are, despite being disguised as "a contractually agreed charge"), then the RK would also not be liable.

Of course, it appears that most PPC invoices are currently not Schedule 4 compliant anyway, so ignoring works even better.:D

polyplastic

In the meantime why not drop a line to the DVLA along the lines I suggested in my post numbered 87 (six posts up) , Let's be proactive to try and change the system to make it fairer to the motorist. Cut and paste into an email

Dear Sir

I would refer you to the following link
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/unlawful_release_of_data

I would also like to know just what protocol the DVLA has, or proposes to have, in place to meet the Information Commissioner's requirement that your office prevents a PPC from accessing registered keeper data at a time when it is statutorily prohibited from requesting it under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012


Polyplastric

Coupon-mad

polyplastic wrote: »

In the meantime why not drop a line to the DVLA along the lines I suggested in my post numbered 87 (six posts up) , Let's be proactive to try and change the system to make it fairer to the motorist. Cut and paste into an email

Dear Sir

I would refer you to the following link
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/unlawful_release_of_data

I would also like to know just what protocol the DVLA has, or proposes to have, in place to meet the Information Commissioner's requirement that your office prevents a PPC from accessing registered keeper data at a time when it is statutorily prohibited from requesting it under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

Polyplastric

I will do just that, thanks! :T Email is [EMAIL="FOI@dvla.gsi.gov.uk"]FOI@dvla.gsi.gov.uk[/EMAIL]

edward123

polyplastic wrote: »

Is the period of time correct? Did you pay for one hour and park for 45 minutes but they claim it was one and a half hours? The notice is correct because they filled in all the blanks, but they lied. Lying is a separate argument to the validity of the notice. With ANPR they can say that between such and such a time and such and such a time you were there. That is the period.

What if its a free car park(so no pay and display) but for customers only. No ANPR cameras just a ppc employee who tickets the vehicle because it has no evidence the driver was a customer of the business(one has to visit business and obtain something to place inside vehicle), and said ppc employee takes a photo of car to show no evidence. How can the ticket be valid as there is no actual "period" (<

---

>) but only a 'point' in time (>!<)?

trisontana

And what about those customers who actually visit the shop, just browse and don't buy anything? Are they breaking the "rules".

Pointy

There seem to be quite a few posts about ParkingEye issuing court papers on the forums (Pepipoo, CAG & MSE)??

Stroma

Pointy wrote: »

There seem to be quite a few posts about ParkingEye issuing court papers on the forums (Pepipoo, CAG & MSE)??

Have you considered its very often the same person asking for advice on multiple forums ? For example we advise to post on pepipoo as they have experienced users who can help. I don't think they are doing anything exceptional here.

Coupon-mad

Pointy wrote: »

There seem to be quite a few posts about ParkingEye issuing court papers on the forums (Pepipoo, CAG & MSE)??

Sometimes new posters have alter egos...

edward123

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Sometimes new posters have alter egos...

....which means Pointy Eye, sorry, meant Parking Eye, is very very concerned about the valid sound advice on these sites/forums.

Hello PE.:rotfl:

Pointy

Pointy eye??? I've received 2 parking charge letters from parking eye and have been reading the forum and have seen numerous mentions of parking eye taking people to court.