Parking Eye Fine

Tommykelly

I've looked through other forums and posts but can't seem to find a definitive answer about what to do; many people say ignore it but others say different.

On the 14/03/2013 I parked in a space for a holiday inn outside Virgin active leisure facility. I received the classic parking eye letter saying how i need to pay £100.

I was just wondering wether I should just ignore it? and/or should I complain to holiday inn?

any advice would be appreciated!

Thanks

warehouse

OP do both, (ignore charge and complain to Holiday Inn).

Dublindel

You describe it as the 'classic' therefore you have experience of this company. So do what you did last time.

bondy_lad

a)ignore and b)complain c)see a.

Coupon-mad

No-one can tell you which to do unless this was in Scotland in which case the advice is still to ignore. Here's a pepipoo thread discussing the options and it's specific to Parking Eye. Pay particular attention to broadsword's advice on there as he's an expert on the whole PPC scam with a great deal of informed knowledge:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=77301

What we can do is tell you not to pay, and to definitely COMPLAIN to Holiday Inn. Keep all the letters and franked/dated envelopes as well.

And then take whichever of the 'ignore' or 'appeal and then appeal (much more strongly) to POPLA' options suits you best. Are you good at ignoring junk mail from debt collectors, quite confident about laughing at scammers like this even if they send a solcitors' letter?

If not then try the appeal option but get help when you word the POPLA appeal - do not just send it off with mitigating circs and a standard appeal - POPLA needs legal arguments and particular stuff about BPA breaches and contract law points, we are finding.

Kevin_Holdridge

ParkingEye and Holiday Inn - a partnership made in Hell. My wife (a Holiday Inn Platinum Partner) parked up at the HolidayInn Express Stoke to take a phone call.

As registered keeper I then got a speculative invoice masquerading as a penalty charge notice from ParkingEye.

My wife went back and complained to the Holiday Inn Express Stoke reception staff - they said there was nothing they could do. I complained to the general manager after ParkingEye subsequently issued court proceedings. His incredible response was that if only we had complained to the hotel earlier they would have got the ticket cancelled. When I pointed out that that was exactly what we had done but his staff had told us to go away and boil our heads, there was no answer.

I took up the local manager's unsatisfactory response with head office in the USA. They referred it back to the local manager! Not surprisingly there was no response again. When I complained once more to Holiday Inn HQ 'customer services' they said they would not take any further action ('further'??!) but hoped that this incident wouldn't stop us continuing to be a customer of Holiday Inn! Right.

So, either Holiday Inn Express doesn't give a sh*t about its customers (even Platinum Loyalty Card holders) or they have incompetently got themselves into a contract with an out-of-control contractor (Parking Eye) and are powerless to rein it in despite the damage to customer relations and their reputation.

Needless to say, I'm fighting the court case. I'd recommend checking out The Parking Prankster if you find yourself up against a ParkingEye scam. He's brilliant, and his books on fighting the case are really helpful (well worth the very small charge). I'm not able to post links in this forum but you can easily Google 'Parking Prankster'.

I'm so disgusted at this corporate greed and arrogance that I've set up a small website to highlight the issue. Not much there just yet but once the court case is over, the gloves will be off.

Again, no link possible here but you can Google "Holiday Inn Express Stoke Sucks"

ampersand

Well done Kevin - and you'll not even be told [par moi] to start a separate Thread, but you could get more traction/action if you did.

Social networking is not my truc, but I'd suggest you involve Book of Face with this.

I know the very best of mse's parking brains will be along to aid and abet you shortly.

We all know and love Prankie, never fear.

Kerienn

Apologize my bad English, I am Hungarian and have a small story to share:

Got a letter from PE (£85/£50), overstayed the 2 hr limit by 1.5 hr in Chelmsford, Riverside Retail Park


First appealed on their website attaching 5 different receipts and a bank statement proofing we were shopping and eating (McDonalds) around in the retail park stores. They denied it. Then I started to email-bombing (with attached receipts) all the stores in the retail park to help me to cancel the ticket, pointing on that we were using the car park for browsing, buying, eating, etc.. during that 3.5 hrs of parking (which was true), and the 2 hrs time limit is far not enough. McDonalds' manager said nothing they can do. Some store managers didn't bother to reply, some were very helpful and helped me. A week later after the first letter got another letter from PE, which was exactly the same. In the meanwhile, one of the store manager was chasing up the case, so a week later got another letter from PE that the charge was cancelled.

Here is the copy of my appeal:

Dear Parking Eye,

PCN number .....................
I have received your parking 'invoice' impersonating a parking ticket. I decline your invitation to pay or name the driver, neither of which are required of me as the keeper of the vehicle. This is my appeal and all liability to your company is denied on the following basis:

A) The amount is neither a genuine tariff/fee for parking, nor is it based upon any genuine pre-estimate of loss to your company or the landowner.
You are not the landowner and do not have the standing to offer contracts to drivers nor to bring a claim in your own right.
C) Your signage was not sufficiently prominent nor clearly worded and consideration did not flow from both parties, so there was no contract formed. This is a non-negotiated and totally unexpected third party 'charge' foisted upon legitimate motorists who are not your customers and are not parties of equal bargaining power. Therefore ALL terms are required to be so prominent and the risk of a charge so transparent that the information in its entirety must have been seen/accepted by the driver. No reasonable person would have accepted such onerous parking terms and I contend the extortionate charge was not 'drawn to his attention in the most explicit way' (Lord Denning, Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 2 QB 163, Court of Appeal): 'The customer is bound by those terms as long as they are sufficiently brought to his notice beforehand, but not otherwise. In {ticket cases of former times} the issue...was regarded as an offer by the company. That theory was, of course, a fiction. No customer in a thousand ever read the conditions. In order to give sufficient notice, it would need to be printed in red ink with a red hand pointing to it - or something equally startling.'

As you have failed to create any enforceable contract I suggest that you cancel this unjustified 'ticket'. If not, under your Trade Body's current Code of Practice you must issue a rejection letter which, in order to answer my appeal, must include:

1. The legal basis of your charge, which is not clear (i.e. breach, trespass or contractual fee?). As keeper, I cannot be expected to guess the basis of your allegation.
(i) if alleging breach of contract, please supply a breakdown of your alleged 'loss' and state the intention of your enforcement (i.e. deterrent or revenue?).
(ii) if alleging trespass, enclose evidence of the perpetrator, proof of the liquidated damages alleged and the calculation of this sum by the landholder.
(iii) if alleging 'contractual fee' I request a VAT invoice by return and your explanation of how you can allow drivers to park 'in breach' for a fee when your client originally contracted you in order to disallow and deter - not allow and profit from - unauthorised parking. I contend this charge is merely a penalty which is not recoverable in contract law (as found by Mr Recorder Gibson QC in the case of Civil Enforcement v McCafferty 3YK50188 (AP476) 21/2/2014 Appeal). Should you try to rely upon ParkingEye v Beavis & Wardley at independent appeal stage, I will of course point out that it was a flawed decision at small claim level so is not binding, and Mr Beavis is continuing his defence to the Court of Appeal. There is clearly no commercial justification for this punitive charge and no case law to support it.

2. Proof of your locus standi to offer contracts to drivers at this site and to bring a claim in your own right for this particular contravention. If you are not the landowner, I will need to see a copy of your contract, showing the restrictions, the charges, the dates and terms of business including any payments between yourself and your client and the definition of your status as agents or contractors and your assigned rights (if any). Such detail is necessary for me to make an informed decision. Failure to divulge your landowner contract (or heavily redacting it) will be deemed as withholding pertinent information and, of course, I will require it to be shown at independent appeal stage anyway. A witness statement will not suffice, nor a site agreement with a managing agent or other party who is not the landowner.

3. Your explanation of the consideration that you believe flowed from the driver, and from yourselves. Consideration from both sides is required for a contract.

4. A copy of the signage site map and close-up pictures of the signs in situ at the time, taken at a comparable time of day in similar light conditions.

5. The means to make an appeal to POPLA or the IAS. This must not be withheld or delayed, which would be a breach of the Code of Practice.

If you fail to simply cancel the charge or supply the means to independent appeal in your first reply you will also be reported to your applicable ATA and the DVLA. A certificate of posting will be obtained for all written communications for this appeal and complaint and I intend to claim my costs when I prevail.
I will now be complaining to your client about this ridiculous so-called 'parking charge' and about your whole set-up which does nothing to drive up standards in the parking industry, nor pays any regard to your client's purported customer service ethic. This is not an example of parking management, this is a covert practice which, to any reasonable person, might appear to be a business model akin to a protection racket on site. Your clients will be informed of our disgust at your entire business approach and your unwarranted threats. Despite your reliance upon impersonating 'PCNs' I am aware that you are no parking Authority, merely one of many from an industry known to make their profits by farming car parks and routinely emptying the pockets of customers of legitimate businesses. As I am sure you can tell, I am incensed by this harassment.
Yours,
............

freespirited

I read your letter to Parking Eye with interest. I wondered if I could use parts of it myself as I am in a similar situation with Parking Eye and HOliday inn?

Umkomaas

It's late now, but don't use the above:

1. It's almost 18 months old
2. A lot of water has passed under the bridge - of biblical proportions in the context of ParkingEye and The Riverside Retail Park about which the above appeal is based. Google 'PE v Beavis'!
3. You should read the current advice which is all there for you in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, near the top of the forum thread list.
4. After reading, please start a thread of your own if you need further help, as jumping in on someone else's can lead to confusion and errors. And you were likely to become a classic case of this by attempting to blindly use the above.

HTH