Parking Eye Letter Before Action

Muffin_The_Mule

In april 2013 I was travelling in a vehicle which overstayed a 2 hour limit at a Parking Eye enforced motorway service station car park.

On entry to and within the car park I saw no signs detailing the conditions of using the parking facilities.
There are aparently signs on the entry.

5 days later I recieved a "Parking charge noitce" from PE which also asked me to identify the driver.
It asked for £100 or reduced to £60 if payed within 14 days.
On seeking advice from friends who have had this happen to them and on reading various forums (including this one) the advice seemed to be "ignore" which I did.

10 days later I recieved an additional letter from PE similar to the first which was entitled "Parking Charge Notice Reminder" which also stated that the £100 owed would be reduced £60 if paid in 5 days.
I also ignored this letter.

25 days later I recieved another letter from PE which was a reminder now stating the ammuint was £100 and further action would be taken if not paid within 14 days.
Again I ignored this letter.

Today I recieved a "sign for" letter from PE entitled Letter Before action.
This is dated 30 days from the date of the last letter.

This situation had caused me an enourmous ammount of anxiaty and stress as I do not cope well with things like this and £100 is an enourmous ammount of money to our monthly finances.
The prospect of having to find this or any additional amount is very frightening.

I have done a lot of reading on this but I am still very confused as to what (if anything) I should now be doing.

I have been given 14 days from 1st July the date of the letter) to with pay or (in their own words) "Further action "WILL" be taken and "COURT PROCEEDINGS" will be issued, which "WILL" incur further costs"

Can you please advise what I should be doing next in this specific case.

Muffin

Stroma

Can I ask are you the registered keeper of the vehicle? Or is your partner for example? Can you tell us how long over their stated time did you stay? And whether you are considered disabled under the Equality act 2010? That doesn't mean do you have a blue badge

Also if they do take you to court we can help you with a defence, this is a penalty which is inherently unfair

Coupon-mad

Same thread every day, arriving like buses:

PARKING EYE LETTER BEFORE ACTION

PARKING EYE LETTER BEFORE ACTION

PARKING EYE LETTER BEFORE ACTION

PARKING EYE LETTER BEFORE ACTION


easily found with a quick search of the parking forum or even just scrolling down a bit...

Muffin_The_Mule

Thank you for replying Storma.

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle.
I am not considered disabled under the Equality Act 2010.
We overstayed a little over 40 mintes over the two hours.

Muffin.

@ Coupon Mad, I have read and searched but I did not find a thread/posts that fitted with my particular circumstances.

Muffin.

Stroma

The interesting thing is that they are not even going the debt collector fake solicitor route now. Bet Debt Recovery Plus and Zenith are missing the business

Stroma

Muffin_The_Mule wrote: »

Thank you for replying.

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle.
I am not considered disabled under the Equality Act 2010.
I was just over 40 mintes over the two hours.

Muffin.

Okay you have two options then, either pay their unlawful penalty and its over for you, but you'll be funding this scam. Or wait to see if they carry out their threat and take you down the small claims track. If they take you there us and the guys over on https://www.pepipoo.com can help you with a very solid defence.

It's up to you basically, they are trying this small claim route as the final intimidation to get you to pay, they are basically abusing the court system and multiple complaints have been made. You are the one facing this not us so have a think about it and read around here and on pepipoo.

We can help you if you want to defend this.

Coupon-mad

Stroma I don't think it's pay or wait, there's a third option with an LBA and I think an OP should respond to try to see it off and it will also look more reasonable to be responding now, if it does go to a small claim.

I think it's best to respond strongly to show this OP is not a pushover and I would copy in the Service Station Head Office too, wording it as a complaint for harassment and non-compliance with their own Traffic Signs Agreement and the TSRGD 2002. That might make them think twice about picking your case for a small claim especially if they see their client has been copied in.

Parking Eye issue a lot of these LBAs and will surely drop quite a few and not follow them up, make yours one of those; a hot potato!


As this is a Motorway Service Area (MSA) go on the attack, complain about PE and send a copy to PE too, quoting from this from the Dept for Transport.


''Operators of both new and existing MSAs, whether leased from the Government or privately owned, must comply with the requirements of government policy. These provisions are reflected in the Traffic Signs Agreements into which they enter with the Highways Agency. If they do not observe these conditions, action can be taken which could ultimately lead to the closure of sites.''

''All MSAs (including the network of Core sites defined at paragraph 57 above) must provide as a minimum the following facilities for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year:

• free parking for up to two hours for all types of vehicle''

''Signing within roadside facilities100. All traffic signs and markings within roadside facilities should conform to the standards laid down in the TSRGD 2002 as amended or replaced from time to time.''






- I am thinking that I bet not all the signs and lines comply with the TSRGD, especially the Parking Eye signs which can only be 'Traffic Signs' (what else could they be?).

- And I am thinking that their camera systems may not comply with the original Planning Consent for that MSA nor with government policy and the Traffic Signs Agreement.

- And I am thinking that the Government are saying that MSAs have to provide a minimum of two hours free PARKING. Now picture a car arriving, going past a PE camera, then visiting the petrol station first and filling up with fuel, using the petrol station shop and then using the air and water refills too, then perhaps adjusting the roof box for safety or rearranging the luggage in the boot.

After that the car drives through to the parking area and parks up for two hours (as the Government allow). Then they pack up and leave, driving past the PE camera at the exit.

PE's cameras will say they overstayed. PE's cameras would be wrong and would breaching the Dept for Transport's requirements as well as their signs not conforming with the TSRGD.

Stroma

Complaining to the service provider is not a third option but should be done automatically , if I had a complaint about tesco for example then it would be there a complaint should be made. I thought that would be obvious

Coupon-mad

Stroma wrote: »

Complaining to the service provider is not a third option but should be done automatically , if I had a complaint about tesco for example then it would be there a complaint should be made. I thought that would be obvious

No, it's a complaint response to PE as well. Not just to the client. So it is a third option = respond, which I think people should do with any LBA.

Stroma

Coupon-mad wrote: »

No, it's a complaint response to PE as well. Not just to the client. So it is a third option = respond, which I think people should do with any LBA.

You are probably right, but I don't see the point of it where parking eye are concerned as it prepares them for this. They have decided on action every lba from goes there. And unless you've got a game changer like I was the driver then it will proceed IMO

Coupon-mad

I think we should try to make the responses to LBAs 'game changers' and in the above case I think the suggested reply does. For a start, no way do PE signs comply with the TSRGD because there is no such sign in the TSRGD!

I just read this other example of a suggested reply to a PE LBA:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=80892

Post #4 seems worth a try in a run-of-the-mill PE Retail Store car park case (unlike this one which has more to offer in terms of a fightback to get them to drop it like a hot potato!). Must remember it for the future.