ParkingEye charge

Coupon-mad

polyplastic wrote: »

I think that it may be of assistance, Stroma, if the actual words of the relevant paragraphs of the judgement are recited...The words “propriety rights” used by Stroma were not actually mentioned in the judgment.

Yes - but I would recite these relevant paragraphs which do convey that meaning IMHO:

''40...VCS was not in a position, by virtue of its limited licence, to make any offer of a right to park. The ability to offer such a right was not conferred by the contract with the client, either expressly or by virtue of the nature of the interest in the car park conferred on VCS. That interest did not amount to a licence to occupy, or give VCS any right to possession. It merely conferred a right of entry to perform VCS’s obligations under the contract.

41. The warning signs erected in the car park do not assist VCS in these circumstances. The reference in those signs to the fact that the motorist is entering into a contractual agreement cannot create a contract where there is no relevant offer from VCS that can be accepted.

42. We agree with Mr Singh that no right to park could have been, or was, offered by VCS to the motorist. Motorists who parked in the car park were generally already permitted to park by the client, the landowner, to whom permits had been given. Those motorists already had the right to park...''

polyplastic wrote: »

The case is the subject of an appeal and so it has not been finally settled.

Yes but as we all know, the May 2012 case was an appeal case anyway - and it was lost by VCS. Simon Renshaw Smith is just pushing the appeal further because he can afford it as he is rolling in money obtained from victims of his companies - and he hopes the next appeal will overturn the last.

We shall see!

polyplastic wrote: »

In the alternative the PPC could take a leasehold interest in the car park in which case it wouldhave the “propriety right” that Stroma mentions.

I think that's the only way a PPC could proceed in future but I can't see too many landowners offering that! NCP owns some car parks but most PPCs do not.

And in the case of Retail Car Parks, most commonly the occupier (e.g. Tesco) is only a leaseholder themselves in occupation in a Council or privately owned car park. So Tesco cannot then confer any rights of occupation or ownership to Highview, or whoever.

polyplastic wrote: »

There is no need to use POPLA, as Stroma says, but it can, as I have said, be held against you in proceedings because of the requirements of the Court's pre action protocol.

Polyplastic

I agree, which is why I usually suggest a POPLA appeal now even though we have seen some strange decisions from POPLA.

It would be a reasonable thing for people to do, to appeal - a 'normal' response perhaps from many people. It is easy to do and covers the bases for those very few who might get Court papers in the end. And as you say, ignoring could give the motorist something to have to 'explain' in Court when a PPC 'suit' paints a picture to a judge, of having made 'reasonable offers' of an appeals procedure backed by the BPA and the POFA.

Some judges would fall for that. :mad:

polyplastic

henauvin wrote: »

Polyplastic, I am following this debate with interest. Are you wiling to confirm whether you have approriate legal qualifications? Thanks

35 years in the legal profession. Many many moons ago studied a law degree at London University. Dim and distant memory now. Yes I believe that I have an appropriate legal qualification.

It is often a problem on these sites if you don't sing from the same hymn sheet as regulars. In the profession you check out the facts first before passing judgement on a person's claim. You sit the client down and go through their particular case and then give them a view as to whether they have a case that merits defending. You give them the various options that may be available to them, with potential consequences, and then leave them to make their own decision as to what they wish to do. Jump in and say "Ignore the PPC" "They won't take you to court" etc and your professional indemnity insurers will soon want to drop you as a client. Funny but if advice goes wrong on here no one has a liability other than the poor chap asking for advice.

So, I have a different approach to these matters. Give the client information to let them take an informed view. It's not the usual approach but that doesn't mean that it is wrong.

I was quite saddened to read the advice given on here and which lead to the OP receiving the court papers. Sometimes it works but when it goes wrong, someone has to pick up the pieces and its never those offering the advice. He took a decision without knowing the risks, consequences etc. Then he was urged to defend the action even though he said he could not think of a defence. Well, he either broke the rules or he didn't. If he did there may be other defences which may be available but without knowledge of the facts no one can really tell him what to do, but just give him the options and advise of the risks. There are always risks with litigation.

For example, the PPC may be claiming unlawful damages. However, no one knows if that is what they are claiming so its difficult to defend what you don't know.

For example, Parking Eye may own the car park in question so VCS is irrelevant. Parking Eye may have no legal ability to contract with the driver. No one knows so it is difficult to defend what you don't know.

You have to find these things out before you can offer a defence and once you are in the judicial process you have to find it out according to the Court rules. Apply for discovery of documents. How do you do that? Now some of us know but does the litigant in person? Never make assumptions in litigation. That is where you come undone....unless you are lucky.

The easy option when someone takes a different approach is to say that he is in the pay of Parking Eye. But then, again, why let the facts get in the way of a good post?

Happy days

Polyplastic

Stroma

I'm still waiting for where I have abused you.

Your problem with this is even though you say you spent 35 years in the legal profession it doesn't make you automatically correct. We've spent many years dealing with these companies and know their tactics and the way they deal with things.

The fact of the matter is and I reiterate this for you

2011
1.8m tickets
845 claims
49 before a judge
25 wins for the motorist
24 wins for parking companies

And 2012 wasn't much different, we are yet to see how 2013 pans out, probably more claims, who knows as we are not in possession of crystal balls here. I know one thing it will still mean that at least 99% of non payments won't go to court, the reason is they would need an army of people to go to court.

Stroma

I was quite saddened to read the advice given on here and which lead to the OP receiving the court papers. Sometimes it works but when it goes wrong

I was quite sad as well, but an opinion was given which is below, and its based on parking eye going to court 5 times in total in 2011 out 100s of thousands tickets. It's down to the OP to decide what to do not us.

Stroma wrote: »

By the way it's bluster, they will not take you to court IMO , they have had some bloody noses in court and as they don't have any legal right to offer parking ( google hmrc v vcs) they won't risk another hiding.

henauvin

polyplastic wrote: »

35 years in the legal profession. Many many moons ago studied a law degree at London University. Dim and distant memory now. Yes I believe that I have an appropriate legal qualification.
Polyplastic

Thank you...these three lines answer my question!
As an interested, but intelligent and open-minded onlooker, forgive me for finding the remainder of your post just a tad patronising

Coupon-mad

Polyplastic I find your posts interesting but you seem to give the PPCs a bit too much credit for my liking! We regulars do know that Parking Eye do not own car parks - so in every case there's no way they can offer parking nor form contracts with motorists. As you know, their signs can't help them and just putting some cameras up doesn't grant them rights of occupation - and in the car parks they frequent - with the very nature of what they choose to call 'ANPR' but it's not really - the parking spaces are always already offered by the owner/occupiers.

So no trespass has occurred (in any PE case) and no contract can have been formed (in any PE case).

So just because they have decided to try a Small Claim (very very rare) doesn't make it a cause for concern - and the OP is now getting specific help to word his defence, from the most knowledgeable members on pepipoo. I think the PPCs have been forced to up the ante at the moment as they haven't got the 'golden ticket' they thought they had, from the POFA.

Expect Parking Eye to throw in the towel before the month is out once they see the defence.

stevex48

I am now being passed on to Debt Recovery Plus Ltd from Parking Eye and received a "Notice of intended litigation" letter from them to recover £150 outstanding amount for parking in a half empty free car park at Heathrow Starbucks and KFC carpark for 20mins too long! so far I have ignored the several letters from Parking Eye to pay the "fines" They say in the letter that this may go to court but on numerous sites advice, thus far, I have ignored the several letters sent by them!. I am still holding my ground by not contacting them but must admit my [EMAIL="A@!£E"]A@!£E[/EMAIL] is now tweaking lol ;-) This has been going on since I parked there in early November! annoying thing is my brother met me there (he arrived about 20 mins before me) and we both left at the same time! he didn't receive a notice letter! only difference is his car is worth about a quarter the amount mine is worth and I have a personal number plate (sad I know!) and he is registered within M25 and mine in Surrey. Why have they discriminated against me and not my brother? I just don't get it! I'm hoping it doesn't go to court as I cannot afford time off work to attend and can't be [EMAIL="ars@d"]ars@d[/EMAIL] with the hasstle of it all. Here's hoping they give up at the last hurdle and don't take me to court. Having ignored ALL letters from them they may finally get the message! I will keep you all informed! Thanks for all the advice in forums like these, Steve

Stroma

Can you please put any updates into a new thread when you have anything more to add. In the meantime continue to ignore as its highly unlikely it will go any further imo . Many thanks

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/forumdisplay.php?f=163

Coupon-mad

stevex48 wrote: »

I am now being passed on to Debt Recovery Plus Ltd from Parking Eye and received a "Notice of intended litigation" letter from them to recover £150 outstanding amount for parking in a half empty free car park at Heathrow Starbucks and KFC carpark for 20mins too long!

So you got this well-known letter in the chain of threatograms?

http://i1147.photobucket.com/albums/o549/msemanparker/IMG_5583.jpg

Look at the Letter chains thread but not at Parking Eye so much as another PPC which uses this letter-chain (e.g. Premier Park Ltd just below Parking Eye) as shown on the PPC letter chains thread:

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

and here's pepipoo's recent thread with the latest Parking Eye letters also from DRP - so that means you'll get the Zenith letters next (as seen on the PPC letter chains thread already linked). Zenith and DRP are one and the same scaremongering scammer debt collectors, pointless pen-pushers, that's all:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3829727

polyplastic

I have Just posted some useful details on pepipo for the assistance of the OP. Parking Eye does not comply strictly with the requrements of the POFA. fail to address all of its requirements and you can't sue the registered keeper.

Polyplastic.