PE LBC again!

Bobsmithers

Hi stroma

Will include a request for that in next letter.

I have already asked for the full address and post code where the alleged breach took place. I did this because they have and still do use the name of a retail park which is slightly different to the correct one. They have not complied with this request for information.

Bobsmithers

Not to mention the fact that their signage on entry to the car park is not satisfactory and the sits that are on site are too high to be read properly by a pedestrian never mind a motorist in a moving vehicle.

Also, they fail to advise the motorist that ANPR is in use on entry to the car park. I am sure this is a breach of something more than just the BPA code of practice!

zzzLazyDaisy

Hi, it's not the second LBCCC that I need to see... it is the second letter (ie the reply to your acknowledgement). Sorry for not being clear enough.

Although I have to say that I am staggered to say that their current version of the LBCCC is even more useless than the old version.... what ARE they playing at??????????

D

Bobsmithers

LOL, ok. Let me get that one typed up and posted. Will be tomorrow am now. Night shift with baby has started!

Bobsmithers

The burning question for me is why they fail to stick to any rules. Not the BPA or the MoJ PD. What is your opinion?

Stroma

Bobsmithers wrote: »

The burning question for me is why they fail to stick to any rules. Not the BPA or the MoJ PD. What is your opinion?

Arrogance and greed, they try & steamroller people including the BPA, and the main culprits for letting this continue is the DVLA, I tried with 5 or 6 complaints about them this time last year, they did nothing!

Though smaller companies like Excel and Roxburghe were banned for 3 months for lessor things, the reason why the DVLA does nothing is simple, its the money that Parking Eye give them, circa 680k x £2.50 = £1.7m for RK details

Umkomaas

The DVLA are just plain frightened of them.

No worries, as long as it doesn't threaten their DVLA annual incremental pay rises or their index-linked pensions, no harm done.

No need for the law or justice to get in the way :cool:

Scouse_Magic

send them nothing.......Go to court and give them a hiding they will never forget.....If every shopper stayed away because of PE's signage, every retail park would close down and PE's business running costs would remain the same.

So there is no way they can justify the charge being a genuine pre estimate of actual loss..." Under contract law the claimant should be entitled only to a sum which would put him in the same position as he would have been in if the breach of contract had not occurred."

In your case the car park is free

They will also have to show they have permission from the landowner IE Council to bring proceedings in their own name....A written statement is insufficient, however they have been firing out all sorts of crap in the post recently, so dont be alarmed......you will win !!!

Thanks to DCB for this lovely info following a POPLA appeal involving PE........They lost !!!!

"Whilst the Operator has provided a statement which it submits justifies the charge as a pre-estimate of loss, I am not minded to accept this justification.
The Operator must show that the charge sought is a genuine estimate of the potential loss caused by the parking breach, in this case, the Appellant’s over stay in the car park for 25 minutes. The Operator has produced a list of costs; however, these appear to be general operational costs, and not losses caused by the Appellant’s breach.
Consequently, I must find that the Operator has failed to produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss."

when the time comes, be Prepared and do your research well !!! They will try every unsavoury trick in the book to get the judge onside by filing pages and pages of case studies of "What actually constitutes a contract" and they probably will make a reference to internet forums.....

Not that it is relevant to the case anyhow, but it is not a crime to use social networks, but on the subject of forums, you can refer to one of PE's enforcement officer Job Description.....Note the bits hi lited in bue


The role of enforcement officericon within our Enforcement Team has access to keeper at the date of event (KADOE) details provided to us from the DVLA. In order to use this service all employees and potential employees will need to ensure that you have

1.Signed a declaration that you have no unspent convictions or pending prosecutions, including being arrested and on bail

2.Signed an undertaking to tell us if you have any pending convictions or prosecutions, whilst employed by ParkingEye Ltd and using the KADOE Service

3.Signed a declaration that you will only use the data from the KADOE service for its intended use in relation to your job

Main Duties:

*Assessing whether a case is suitable for a county courticon claim. This will include looking at a number of different factors

*Finding potential candidates for ‘further action’ by analysing a number of key websites/forums and the information they provide

:beer:

Stroma

The problem with going to court is the sheer lottery of it all, replying strengthens your arm should it go there, I would think taking advantage of anything prior should be grabbed at

Bobsmithers

PE Response to 1st request for info:

Dear Sir/Madam

Thank you for your correspondence in relation to the Parking Charge incurred on Day Month Year, at Location car park.

We recently sent you a Letter Before Action, informing you that the above Parking Charge remains outstanding and has now been processed for further action. This is because we had not received an appeal or payment from you within the time period stated on the first Parking Charge Notice. This notice informed you that all appeals should be put in writing and submitted to ParkingEye within 28 days of our initial correspondence. Appealing at this stage would have also given you the chance to appeal your charge at POPLA (the Parking on Private Land Appeals Service) had your appeal to ParkingEye been unsuccessful.

You were also notified that, if you were not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the Parking Event, you must provide ParkingEye with the name and postal address of the correct driver, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, within 28 days of the Date Given. Again this was not received. You consequently became responsible for the outstanding amount detailed on the Parking Charge. We must therefore inform you that the amount, as outlined in the Letter Before Action remains outstanding from you, as the registered keeper.

In relation to your claim that our charges are disproportionate and therefore not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, we refer you to the below cases that indicate that the Parking Charge amount is fair and reasonable. Furthermore we have calculated this sum 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 the paid to the BPA, DVLA and ICO.

This sum, and the calculations which have been made in setting it, has been approved and agreed by the landowner (or the landowner's agent). 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.

We also note that a number of your queries are of generic nature, a number of which we have seen before. Please see ParkingEye's answers to Frequently Asked Questions below.

****************

Their FAQs are the usual waffle which I'd be happy to post if required.

There more I read the letters they send the more holes I find in their references and general use of language.

Thanks