We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Parking Eye have responded to my letter I sent to them after receiving a LBA
worlds_end1
Posts: 22 Forumite
Similar to another thread - as I'm new been advised to start a new thread:
Dont live in Scotland,not disabled but following my LBA reply - had ignored all previous, received a letter back from them, which is below:
ParkingEye strongly believes that the Letter Before Action was sufficient in bringing to your attention impending court action and, as indicated by your correspondence you are already well versed in what is required under the Practice Direction on Pre-action Conduct.
To clarify, the Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA) Service, will only accept an appeal after the motorist has made their appeal (‘representations’) to the operator who issued the Parking Charge Notice and that operator has rejected these and issued a POPLA appeal form. In this instance, no appeal has been made to ParkingEye in the timescale required (i.e. 28 days from the date of our initial correspondence), instead correspondence has only been sent after court proceedings have been issued. All our correspondence has stated,
“All appeals and complaints must be put in writing and should be forwarded to one of the addresses below. All appeals must be received within 28 days from the date of our initial correspondence. Please include all information to assist with the appeal. This may include: a store receipt from the day in question; proof of purchases via a bank statement etc. If the appeal is unsuccessful, you will be advised in writing and you will also be provided with details of the Independent Appeals Service (POPLA), their contact details and a unique appeal reference. Please note: The POPLA service is only available for parking events dated from 1st October 2012 and POPLA will not accept an appeal, if you have not appealed to ParkingEye in the first instance.”
ParkingEye runs a dedicated appeals team that considers all appeals on a case by case basis. If an appeal is rejected, the appellant is then given the opportunity to apply to POPLA. At no stage of proceedings have we received an appeal, as has been requested on our correspondence. This procedure has been set down by the British Parking Association (BPA) and POPLA. The BPA website states:
“If you wish to appeal the ticket you should find out who has issued it and what that company’s appeals process is. The operator's name and contact details should be printed on the ticket and on the car park signs. It may also be worth writing to the company/individuals that own the piece of land who may have contracted out the operation of enforcing the parking. If you decide to appeal and this is subsequently rejected by the operator you may take your appeal to POPLA, the independent appeals service which launched on October 1st 2012.”
The Land Holder/Land Owner:
1. In this case, we are contracted by landholder. We are not at liberty to divulge the address of this party.
2. We are contracted by the landholder onsite, or the landholder’s agent. We are fully authorised to operate onsite.
Pre-Estimate Of Loss
3. Please see below points.
4. Please see below points.
ParkingEye have instructed Barrister Jonathan Kirk QC to give his opinion on the matter of pre-estimate of loss. He has stated that, “the burden of proving that the fixed charge amounted to a penalty would be upon the motorist,” that ParkingEye should, “document clearly an attempt to pre-estimate the loss occasioned,” and that, “The courts have recognised that this can be ‘rough and ready’ and will not be defeated because it is not absolutely accurate. It may also be possible to achieve a global figure across the business.” This then is what we provide here.
This was supported In Mayhook v National Car Parks and Fuller (2012). Here the Judge stated, “I do not find that this is a penalty. I think it is NCP doing its best in a very difficult field genuinely to pre-estimate loss.”
It must therefore be noted that this is a very difficult industry in which to determine a completely accurate pre-estimate of loss. This will depend both on the losses to ParkingEye, and on the potential losses to the landholder, which will vary depending on the time of day, the day of the week and even upon the weather.
We have calculated the outstanding Parking Charge amount as a genuine pre-estimate of loss as we incur significant costs in managing this car park to ensure motorists comply with the stated terms and conditions and to follow up any breaches of these. These costs include (but are not restricted to);
Erection and maintenance of the site signage, installation, monitoring and maintenance of the Automatic Number Plate Recognition systems, employment of office-based administrative staff, membership and other fees required to manage the business effectively including those paid to the BPA, DVLA and ICO, general costs including stationery, postage etc. This sum, and the calculations which have been made in setting it, has been approved and agreed by the landholder. This sum was also clearly laid out on the signage at the site and, by remaining on site, we contend that the motorist has accepted all of the prevailing terms and conditions of that contract, including the charges for breach of contract. Furthermore, there is commercial justification for the charges, and the charges were approved and prescribed by the British Parking Association and the Department for Transport in 2012.
Here, ParkingEye has focused on its losses, although, as noted above, there are also significant losses incurred by the landholder.
The average payment by motorists who have been issued with a Parking Charge by ParkingEye is circa £63. Circa 84% of this payment (circa £53) covers ParkingEye’s costs. This information has been taken from ParkingEye’s company accounts and these can be provided to the court if requested.
ParkingEye is required to offer a 40% reduction to motorists for early payment within 14 days. Therefore, this reduced amount needs to be greater than or equal to £53 in order for ParkingEye to operate as a business. Therefore, the upper amount of the charge needed to be at the level outlined below. Furthermore, the amount of £100 was approved and prescribed by the British Parking Association in consultation with the Department for Transport in 2012. Therefore, the full amount of the Parking Charge, which is an enforceable charge levied for breach of contract, is £100. The reduced amount for early payment is £60.
ParkingEye accepts payment of the reduced amount at many stages of its appeal process, including when a motorist who has appealed to ParkingEye is given the opportunity of appealing to the Parking On Private Land Appeals (POPLA) service. It is only if a defendant ignores all ParkingEye correspondence, or loses an appeal at POPLA, that the charge will be increased to the higher amount. At this stage, ParkingEye will have incurred further costs, and this increase is in line with BPA regulations and the terms and conditions set out on the signage. If legal proceedings are entered into, this amount will rise accordingly.
In ParkingEye Ltd v Kevin Shelley (2013), Circuit Judge Dodd adhered to the finding of Lord Justice Colman in Lordsvale Finance v Bank of Zambia [1996] QB 752, which states,
"whether a provision is to be treated as a penalty is a matter of construction to be resolved by asking whether at the time the contract was entered into the predominant contractual function of the provision was to deter a party from breaking the contract or to compensate the innocent party for breach...deduced by comparing the amount that would be payable on breach with the loss that might be sustained if breach occurred".
This follows the traditional definition of Lord Dunedin in the case of Dunlop in 1915. However, at 763g and following it continues,
"the jurisdiction in relation to penalty clauses is concerned not primarily with the enforcement of inoffensive liquidated damages clauses but rather with protection against the effect of penalty clauses. There would therefore seem to be no reason in principle why a contractual provision the effect of which was to increase the consideration payable under an executory contract upon the happening of a default should be struck down as a penalty if the increase could in the circumstances be explained as commercially justifiable, provided always that its dominant purpose was not to deter the other party from breach.”
This description was approved by Lord Justice Manse in the case of Cine Bes Filmcilik Ve Yapimcilik & Anor. v United International Pictures & Ors [2003] EWCA Civ 1669 in which he stated,
"I have also have found valuable Colman J's further observation in Lordsvale at pp.763g-764a, which indicate that a dichotomy between a genuine pre-estimate of damages and a penalty does not necessarily cover all the possibilities. There are clauses which may operate on breach, but which fall into neither category, and they may be commercially perfectly justifiable.”
Circuit Judge Dodd found that the key issue was not whether or not the charge was a pre-estimate of loss; but whether the purpose of the Parking Charge is to deter breach, or if the dominant purpose is commercially justified. We strongly argue that there is commercial justification for the charges. The Judge found that, on a balance of probabilities, it was more likely that the dominant purpose was to provide for regulation of the car park area. He also stated that it was not common for the courts to find a penalty within a contract. He stated that a breakdown of loss was not required, as the contract was formed on its own terms.
In Cavendish Square Holdings v El Makdessi (2012) it was stated:
“I am not persuaded that Clause 5.6 is a penalty clause, the onus being upon the Defendant:
i) It serves a commercial purpose.
ii) I am not satisfied that its purpose is to deter.
However, the reality is that, in the modern approach to the concept of penalty discussed above, there is no longer the need for the dichotomy between liquidated damages and genuine pre-estimate of loss, and so the relevant questions seem to me to be simply:-
i) Was there a commercial justification?”
ParkingEye firmly believes that its charges are fair and reasonable. There is commercial justification for the charges, which means that the charges cannot be considered penalties (see E-Nik v Dept for Communities (2012) and Cadogan Petroleum Holdings Ltd v Global Process Systems LLC (2013)). Private management of car parks is commercially necessary for landholders. They have a right to manage their private land as they see fit and allow motorists to use this land for parking under certain terms and conditions. The contracts, and its clauses, are necessary to prevent abuse of private land. This is commercially necessary as the landholder needs to manage their land in order to ensure that their business can run successfully. The terms and conditions of parking on private land are set out in consultation and conjunction with the landholder, and it is the obligation of the motorist to comply with these when they park in the car park. ParkingEye does not believe that the terms, set out by the landholder, are unfair. However, if the defendant believed them to be, he should not have parked in the car park.
The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 and ParkingEye’s Notices:
5. ParkingEye firmly believes that the creditor has been identified on the Parking Charge Notices. They are headed and footed with the ParkingEye name and logo, and it is made clear that all appeals or payment should be made to ParkingEye. We consider this sufficient to inform the recipient that the creditor is ParkingEye Ltd. In ParkingEye Ltd v Kevin Shelley (2013), it was found that the claimant was identified, and that the Notice to Keeper letter was fully compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
6. As court proceedings have not yet been begun, and as no defence has yet been filed, it is impossible for ParkingEye to state exactly the documents that will be relied upon in court. These could include, but are not limited to; the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the British Parking Association Code of Practice, any defence submitted by you, any reply to defence submitted by us, any document proving ParkingEye’s authorisation to operate on site, any signage plan or images of signage from the site in question.
7. Any person who makes a contract in his own name without disclosing the existence of a principal or who, through disclosing the fact that he is acting as an agent on behalf of the principle, renders himself personally liable on the contract, is entitled to enforce it against the contracting party. (Fairlie v Fenton (1870). It follows that a lawful contract between ParkingEye and the motorist will be enforceable by ParkingEye as a party to that contract. ParkingEye is fully authorised by the landholder to act on their behalf. If evidence of this is requested in a court-authorised defence, ParkingEye will provide this. Our contracts are very commercially sensitive and contain much information not relevant to the case, and we are therefore reluctant to divulge these unless specifically requested by the court. Usually, a witness statement and/or letter of authority signed by the landholder are deemed to be sufficient proof.
Further Information:
ParkingEye has requested that an appeal be made within 28 days since the first Parking Charge Notice was sent. This has not been forthcoming. Had an appeal been made, it is likely that much of this information could have been provided. However, as no correspondence has been received, we have had no choice but to prepare to enter into legal action. Should such action be taken, this will incur further costs, which will be sought from you in court.
Please note that this matter will soon be being conducted in the County Court. Therefore, from this point all submissions should comply with County Court procedure. Standard procedure dictates that the defendant will defend their case, the claimant will reply, and both sides will submit a witness statement and all supporting documents to an allocated County Court. You will be required to submit a defence to the court.
Alternatively, you may want to bring this matter to a close by paying the outstanding Parking Charge.
ParkingEye’s Request For Further Information:
As ParkingEye have given you the courtesy of providing all the relevant information to fully understand the case - despite the fact you chose to ignore several items of correspondence from us requesting to enter into dialogue prior to the need to take court action – ParkingEye would request the following information from yourself. We must inform you that should you fail to provide this necessary information then you may be considered to have not complied with the aforementioned Practice Direction. Should you fail to provide the below information, and in the absence of any prior evidence indicating that you didn’t break the terms and conditions on the signage, ParkingEye will consider this an admission that you wish this to be dealt with in Court. Please therefore provide:
1. The full name and address of the party who authorised you to break the terms and conditions of parking on the private land in question, which were set down by the landholder in conjunction with ParkingEye, and which were clearly displayed via the signage on site.
2. A list of all documents you are going to rely on in court.
3. Please provide an explanation for why you broke the terms and conditions of parking onsite. This should include an explanation of why you believe that these terms and conditions did not apply to you, and why you believe that you had the authority to break them, once the contract had been entered into.
4. Please provide your reasons for having ignored the 4 of letters sent to you in relation to this charge. Please explain why you made no appeal to ParkingEye within the 28 days provided for you to do so. Please explain why you think it is reasonable to have failed to enter into pre-court action dialogue with ParkingEye, and only to have corresponded in relation to this charge now that court action is imminent.
5. Should you consider that you didn’t enter into any contract with ParkingEye, please demonstrate how it is possible that you were on site for xxx hours and xxx minutes, and yet were not made aware of any terms and conditions of parking, despite the signage on site being clear, ample and in line with British Parking Association regulations. This should include evidence of where in the car park you parked, the route you took to this parking space and the route you took upon exiting, as well as information about your movements on site, to show that at no point did you come close to a sign.
6. Please provide your reasons for stating that our Parking Charges are not a pre-estimate of loss.
7. Please provide your reasons for believing that ParkingEye, a BPA and Approved Operator Scheme approved operator, does not have authority to monitor and enforce on the site in question.
8. Please state why we have received over 20 identical documents to your previous correspondence to date - documents we believe originate from online fora (these can be provided to the court if necessary). Please therefore state whether this document was written by you, or whether it was taken from an online forum, or other third party. Please state to what extent you understand the document you have sent to us.
We require the above information within 14 days of you receiving this letter.
If you wish to make payment regarding this matter this can be done by telephoning our offices on 0844 247 2981, by visiting www_parkingeye_co_uk or by posting a cheque or postal order to the address detailed below.
Alleging re overstay by RK/Driver in Fast Food outlet connected to major airport
Again any help would be great - was about to pay?
Thanks
WE
Dont live in Scotland,not disabled but following my LBA reply - had ignored all previous, received a letter back from them, which is below:
ParkingEye strongly believes that the Letter Before Action was sufficient in bringing to your attention impending court action and, as indicated by your correspondence you are already well versed in what is required under the Practice Direction on Pre-action Conduct.
To clarify, the Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA) Service, will only accept an appeal after the motorist has made their appeal (‘representations’) to the operator who issued the Parking Charge Notice and that operator has rejected these and issued a POPLA appeal form. In this instance, no appeal has been made to ParkingEye in the timescale required (i.e. 28 days from the date of our initial correspondence), instead correspondence has only been sent after court proceedings have been issued. All our correspondence has stated,
“All appeals and complaints must be put in writing and should be forwarded to one of the addresses below. All appeals must be received within 28 days from the date of our initial correspondence. Please include all information to assist with the appeal. This may include: a store receipt from the day in question; proof of purchases via a bank statement etc. If the appeal is unsuccessful, you will be advised in writing and you will also be provided with details of the Independent Appeals Service (POPLA), their contact details and a unique appeal reference. Please note: The POPLA service is only available for parking events dated from 1st October 2012 and POPLA will not accept an appeal, if you have not appealed to ParkingEye in the first instance.”
ParkingEye runs a dedicated appeals team that considers all appeals on a case by case basis. If an appeal is rejected, the appellant is then given the opportunity to apply to POPLA. At no stage of proceedings have we received an appeal, as has been requested on our correspondence. This procedure has been set down by the British Parking Association (BPA) and POPLA. The BPA website states:
“If you wish to appeal the ticket you should find out who has issued it and what that company’s appeals process is. The operator's name and contact details should be printed on the ticket and on the car park signs. It may also be worth writing to the company/individuals that own the piece of land who may have contracted out the operation of enforcing the parking. If you decide to appeal and this is subsequently rejected by the operator you may take your appeal to POPLA, the independent appeals service which launched on October 1st 2012.”
The Land Holder/Land Owner:
1. In this case, we are contracted by landholder. We are not at liberty to divulge the address of this party.
2. We are contracted by the landholder onsite, or the landholder’s agent. We are fully authorised to operate onsite.
Pre-Estimate Of Loss
3. Please see below points.
4. Please see below points.
ParkingEye have instructed Barrister Jonathan Kirk QC to give his opinion on the matter of pre-estimate of loss. He has stated that, “the burden of proving that the fixed charge amounted to a penalty would be upon the motorist,” that ParkingEye should, “document clearly an attempt to pre-estimate the loss occasioned,” and that, “The courts have recognised that this can be ‘rough and ready’ and will not be defeated because it is not absolutely accurate. It may also be possible to achieve a global figure across the business.” This then is what we provide here.
This was supported In Mayhook v National Car Parks and Fuller (2012). Here the Judge stated, “I do not find that this is a penalty. I think it is NCP doing its best in a very difficult field genuinely to pre-estimate loss.”
It must therefore be noted that this is a very difficult industry in which to determine a completely accurate pre-estimate of loss. This will depend both on the losses to ParkingEye, and on the potential losses to the landholder, which will vary depending on the time of day, the day of the week and even upon the weather.
We have calculated the outstanding Parking Charge amount as a genuine pre-estimate of loss as we incur significant costs in managing this car park to ensure motorists comply with the stated terms and conditions and to follow up any breaches of these. These costs include (but are not restricted to);
Erection and maintenance of the site signage, installation, monitoring and maintenance of the Automatic Number Plate Recognition systems, employment of office-based administrative staff, membership and other fees required to manage the business effectively including those paid to the BPA, DVLA and ICO, general costs including stationery, postage etc. This sum, and the calculations which have been made in setting it, has been approved and agreed by the landholder. This sum was also clearly laid out on the signage at the site and, by remaining on site, we contend that the motorist has accepted all of the prevailing terms and conditions of that contract, including the charges for breach of contract. Furthermore, there is commercial justification for the charges, and the charges were approved and prescribed by the British Parking Association and the Department for Transport in 2012.
Here, ParkingEye has focused on its losses, although, as noted above, there are also significant losses incurred by the landholder.
The average payment by motorists who have been issued with a Parking Charge by ParkingEye is circa £63. Circa 84% of this payment (circa £53) covers ParkingEye’s costs. This information has been taken from ParkingEye’s company accounts and these can be provided to the court if requested.
ParkingEye is required to offer a 40% reduction to motorists for early payment within 14 days. Therefore, this reduced amount needs to be greater than or equal to £53 in order for ParkingEye to operate as a business. Therefore, the upper amount of the charge needed to be at the level outlined below. Furthermore, the amount of £100 was approved and prescribed by the British Parking Association in consultation with the Department for Transport in 2012. Therefore, the full amount of the Parking Charge, which is an enforceable charge levied for breach of contract, is £100. The reduced amount for early payment is £60.
ParkingEye accepts payment of the reduced amount at many stages of its appeal process, including when a motorist who has appealed to ParkingEye is given the opportunity of appealing to the Parking On Private Land Appeals (POPLA) service. It is only if a defendant ignores all ParkingEye correspondence, or loses an appeal at POPLA, that the charge will be increased to the higher amount. At this stage, ParkingEye will have incurred further costs, and this increase is in line with BPA regulations and the terms and conditions set out on the signage. If legal proceedings are entered into, this amount will rise accordingly.
In ParkingEye Ltd v Kevin Shelley (2013), Circuit Judge Dodd adhered to the finding of Lord Justice Colman in Lordsvale Finance v Bank of Zambia [1996] QB 752, which states,
"whether a provision is to be treated as a penalty is a matter of construction to be resolved by asking whether at the time the contract was entered into the predominant contractual function of the provision was to deter a party from breaking the contract or to compensate the innocent party for breach...deduced by comparing the amount that would be payable on breach with the loss that might be sustained if breach occurred".
This follows the traditional definition of Lord Dunedin in the case of Dunlop in 1915. However, at 763g and following it continues,
"the jurisdiction in relation to penalty clauses is concerned not primarily with the enforcement of inoffensive liquidated damages clauses but rather with protection against the effect of penalty clauses. There would therefore seem to be no reason in principle why a contractual provision the effect of which was to increase the consideration payable under an executory contract upon the happening of a default should be struck down as a penalty if the increase could in the circumstances be explained as commercially justifiable, provided always that its dominant purpose was not to deter the other party from breach.”
This description was approved by Lord Justice Manse in the case of Cine Bes Filmcilik Ve Yapimcilik & Anor. v United International Pictures & Ors [2003] EWCA Civ 1669 in which he stated,
"I have also have found valuable Colman J's further observation in Lordsvale at pp.763g-764a, which indicate that a dichotomy between a genuine pre-estimate of damages and a penalty does not necessarily cover all the possibilities. There are clauses which may operate on breach, but which fall into neither category, and they may be commercially perfectly justifiable.”
Circuit Judge Dodd found that the key issue was not whether or not the charge was a pre-estimate of loss; but whether the purpose of the Parking Charge is to deter breach, or if the dominant purpose is commercially justified. We strongly argue that there is commercial justification for the charges. The Judge found that, on a balance of probabilities, it was more likely that the dominant purpose was to provide for regulation of the car park area. He also stated that it was not common for the courts to find a penalty within a contract. He stated that a breakdown of loss was not required, as the contract was formed on its own terms.
In Cavendish Square Holdings v El Makdessi (2012) it was stated:
“I am not persuaded that Clause 5.6 is a penalty clause, the onus being upon the Defendant:
i) It serves a commercial purpose.
ii) I am not satisfied that its purpose is to deter.
However, the reality is that, in the modern approach to the concept of penalty discussed above, there is no longer the need for the dichotomy between liquidated damages and genuine pre-estimate of loss, and so the relevant questions seem to me to be simply:-
i) Was there a commercial justification?”
ParkingEye firmly believes that its charges are fair and reasonable. There is commercial justification for the charges, which means that the charges cannot be considered penalties (see E-Nik v Dept for Communities (2012) and Cadogan Petroleum Holdings Ltd v Global Process Systems LLC (2013)). Private management of car parks is commercially necessary for landholders. They have a right to manage their private land as they see fit and allow motorists to use this land for parking under certain terms and conditions. The contracts, and its clauses, are necessary to prevent abuse of private land. This is commercially necessary as the landholder needs to manage their land in order to ensure that their business can run successfully. The terms and conditions of parking on private land are set out in consultation and conjunction with the landholder, and it is the obligation of the motorist to comply with these when they park in the car park. ParkingEye does not believe that the terms, set out by the landholder, are unfair. However, if the defendant believed them to be, he should not have parked in the car park.
The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 and ParkingEye’s Notices:
5. ParkingEye firmly believes that the creditor has been identified on the Parking Charge Notices. They are headed and footed with the ParkingEye name and logo, and it is made clear that all appeals or payment should be made to ParkingEye. We consider this sufficient to inform the recipient that the creditor is ParkingEye Ltd. In ParkingEye Ltd v Kevin Shelley (2013), it was found that the claimant was identified, and that the Notice to Keeper letter was fully compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
6. As court proceedings have not yet been begun, and as no defence has yet been filed, it is impossible for ParkingEye to state exactly the documents that will be relied upon in court. These could include, but are not limited to; the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the British Parking Association Code of Practice, any defence submitted by you, any reply to defence submitted by us, any document proving ParkingEye’s authorisation to operate on site, any signage plan or images of signage from the site in question.
7. Any person who makes a contract in his own name without disclosing the existence of a principal or who, through disclosing the fact that he is acting as an agent on behalf of the principle, renders himself personally liable on the contract, is entitled to enforce it against the contracting party. (Fairlie v Fenton (1870). It follows that a lawful contract between ParkingEye and the motorist will be enforceable by ParkingEye as a party to that contract. ParkingEye is fully authorised by the landholder to act on their behalf. If evidence of this is requested in a court-authorised defence, ParkingEye will provide this. Our contracts are very commercially sensitive and contain much information not relevant to the case, and we are therefore reluctant to divulge these unless specifically requested by the court. Usually, a witness statement and/or letter of authority signed by the landholder are deemed to be sufficient proof.
Further Information:
ParkingEye has requested that an appeal be made within 28 days since the first Parking Charge Notice was sent. This has not been forthcoming. Had an appeal been made, it is likely that much of this information could have been provided. However, as no correspondence has been received, we have had no choice but to prepare to enter into legal action. Should such action be taken, this will incur further costs, which will be sought from you in court.
Please note that this matter will soon be being conducted in the County Court. Therefore, from this point all submissions should comply with County Court procedure. Standard procedure dictates that the defendant will defend their case, the claimant will reply, and both sides will submit a witness statement and all supporting documents to an allocated County Court. You will be required to submit a defence to the court.
Alternatively, you may want to bring this matter to a close by paying the outstanding Parking Charge.
ParkingEye’s Request For Further Information:
As ParkingEye have given you the courtesy of providing all the relevant information to fully understand the case - despite the fact you chose to ignore several items of correspondence from us requesting to enter into dialogue prior to the need to take court action – ParkingEye would request the following information from yourself. We must inform you that should you fail to provide this necessary information then you may be considered to have not complied with the aforementioned Practice Direction. Should you fail to provide the below information, and in the absence of any prior evidence indicating that you didn’t break the terms and conditions on the signage, ParkingEye will consider this an admission that you wish this to be dealt with in Court. Please therefore provide:
1. The full name and address of the party who authorised you to break the terms and conditions of parking on the private land in question, which were set down by the landholder in conjunction with ParkingEye, and which were clearly displayed via the signage on site.
2. A list of all documents you are going to rely on in court.
3. Please provide an explanation for why you broke the terms and conditions of parking onsite. This should include an explanation of why you believe that these terms and conditions did not apply to you, and why you believe that you had the authority to break them, once the contract had been entered into.
4. Please provide your reasons for having ignored the 4 of letters sent to you in relation to this charge. Please explain why you made no appeal to ParkingEye within the 28 days provided for you to do so. Please explain why you think it is reasonable to have failed to enter into pre-court action dialogue with ParkingEye, and only to have corresponded in relation to this charge now that court action is imminent.
5. Should you consider that you didn’t enter into any contract with ParkingEye, please demonstrate how it is possible that you were on site for xxx hours and xxx minutes, and yet were not made aware of any terms and conditions of parking, despite the signage on site being clear, ample and in line with British Parking Association regulations. This should include evidence of where in the car park you parked, the route you took to this parking space and the route you took upon exiting, as well as information about your movements on site, to show that at no point did you come close to a sign.
6. Please provide your reasons for stating that our Parking Charges are not a pre-estimate of loss.
7. Please provide your reasons for believing that ParkingEye, a BPA and Approved Operator Scheme approved operator, does not have authority to monitor and enforce on the site in question.
8. Please state why we have received over 20 identical documents to your previous correspondence to date - documents we believe originate from online fora (these can be provided to the court if necessary). Please therefore state whether this document was written by you, or whether it was taken from an online forum, or other third party. Please state to what extent you understand the document you have sent to us.
We require the above information within 14 days of you receiving this letter.
If you wish to make payment regarding this matter this can be done by telephoning our offices on 0844 247 2981, by visiting www_parkingeye_co_uk or by posting a cheque or postal order to the address detailed below.
Alleging re overstay by RK/Driver in Fast Food outlet connected to major airport
Again any help would be great - was about to pay?
Thanks
WE
0
Comments
-
Hi just to let you know I have clocked your post.
Could you please:
1 post your reply/acknowlegment to their LBA please.
2 provide the dates of all correspondence with them starting with the PCN.
3 tell us when you received their template letter.
I note that they say you had several items of correspondence from them requesting you to enter into dialogue with them prior to the need to take court action. I'm curious what sort dialogue they wanted to enter into .... other than 'gimme da money or else...' ????
I am not online much at the moment, but I will check back in a day or two, don't worry you have plenty of time.
DaisyI'm a retired employment solicitor. Hopefully some of my comments might be useful, but they are only my opinion and not intended as legal advice.0 -
thanks Daisy
Offence Dec 2012
Ignored various letters until they wrote with LBA recorded delivery
15/07
I responded 24/07 with LBA questions as seen here on mse site
They have now come back dated 08/08 as per above same letter as Stuart 153
Shall i pm you off site ?
Many thanks
WE0 -
Hi Stuart, there are various replies to LBA's floating around this site as people are encouraged to do their own and not use templates. So I need to know what you wrote. Post it here as I don't always pick up my pms.
On the issue of paying - that is your choice. My own view is that they will not be keen to have this aggressive template letter placed before the court... but who knows....
Have you contacted the fast food outlet? If not do it now they may be willing to assist you in getting this charge cancelled. If they refuse or are unhelpful, ask for the details of the landowner and contact them, and ask them to help in getting this charge cancelled. It is not too late to try this - some people have had charges cancelled even after court proceedings have begun.
How long was the overstay? What was the reason?
One final thing, if you are the registered keeper, but were not the driver on the day, you have the option to identify the driver to the PPC. This resets the POPLA clock and the ppc will send a PCN to the driver who then can appeal to the PPC and from there to POPLA. Of course this only works if you were not the driver at the time (do not tell us on the forum whether you were the driver or not, this is just for your consideration).I'm a retired employment solicitor. Hopefully some of my comments might be useful, but they are only my opinion and not intended as legal advice.0 -
Thanks again Daisy - have sent in appeal direct to PE as though keeper was not the driver and can follow Popla if necessary
WE0 -
Hi,I too have received this same response after replying to PE's LBA which was not sent by recorded post,I have posted a new thread on my issue which is very similar to WE's post...
HUSHEECHEE0 -
From my rough figures and quotes obtained for representation from their "unemployed lawyer" agents I concur that parking eye are running at a loss of around £350 per claim if they win.
Not bad.
So obviously not a business strategy but one to frighten people.Be happy...;)0 -
LOL and their reply is a template.
More bluster and threats and it appears to be working as people are paying up otherwise they wouldn't continue to threaten LBA's.
They may pick and choose taking some presumed easy wins so they can plaster it over their web site to show how tough they are.Search my post " PoPLA evidence - What to submit" on what is a good defense for a PoPLA appeal.0 -
worlds_end1 wrote: »Thanks again Daisy - have sent in appeal direct to PE as though keeper was not the driver and can follow Popla if necessary
WE
So respond to that template, rebutting it all, as advised on other threads including husheechee's thread (which you can see by clicking on their username and their threads).PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Still going on......
latest is copy of Popla letter + code - had not appealed previously as cant remember receiving/seeing letter.
Template says :
We can confirm that the opportunity to appeal to POPLA was granted and confirmed to you in our letter dated XXXX2013. You were then given 28 days in which to submit your appeal to POPLA. After these 28 days have passed you are no longer able to submit a POPLA appeal.
Please note that, according to Civil Procedure Rules 1998, a document, other than a claim form, shall be deemed to be served on the second day after it was posted, left with, delivered to or collected by the relevant service provider provided that day is a business day; or if not, the next business day after that.
Any advice?
Thanks0 -
I don't see how they ever sent you a POPLA code if you never ever appealed? They can only send it with a rejection letter. Does the letter they claim to have sent talk about rejecting an appeal and does it show the 'POPLA code'? You can check the date of the code against the info on the Parking Prankster's blog website (Google 'Parking Prankster what does my POPLA code mean'). Just wondering if this is all stacking up, whether a POPLA code was ever issued...
If they haven't enclosed it - then my next response would be to ask for that letter as you never received it and for what that POPLA code was (even though it wasn't used you wish them to disclose it, because you do not recall that letter or code and you need to make an informed decision and require an open exchange of information).
Meanwhile complain again to the landowner/retailer CEO (top, top person) about this intimidation of a customer. Cancellations are happening every day on this forum (even after court papers have been issued) with assertive complaints as a major tactic.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards