Parking Eye - Court Claim

Coupon-mad

I think Savills will be the one to follow up if you get no reply within a week. They have been good at cancelling this rubbish before. B&Q won't care, but deserve to receive the complaint.

You should indeed hear whether the court case is proceeding, and if/when PE have paid the fee and when it has been transferred to your local court.

mysterywoman10

Sorry to butt in but Savills are unlikely to be the owners of the land, they are Management / Estate agents one of the largest in the world a simple google will tell you that. They are mentioned on a couple of other threads. But they can waive the charge with the PC they use on behalf of their clients who own the land. Which of course goes to strengthen the argument that the actual "owners of the land" have not suffered any lost as their interest will purely be investment.

For example another thread I just posted on mentions Savills I googled mainly because I'm starting to delve into the planning side of all this and the other thread Crown Wharf is local to me a vague document I' ve dug up reveals the owners of the land at Crown Wharf are

Hercules Unit Trust c/o British Land Company Plc (British Land),

So in other words a Unit Trust has no loses because someone parked on their land for the purpose of shopping there!

EDIT: on the website you refer to on I think page one i.e. completelygroup..co.uk and the Arches top right their is a sponsored advert for The British Land Company Plc the own the Crown Wharf one although the Arches isn't mentioned on any of the companies advertising on the British Land Plc's portfolio.

Btw I think their are grounds to complain about that completelygroup website it doesn't hold the proper information it should i.e. an company name, registration,address etc.

mysterywoman10

Well it took me a while but I found this!

http://www.propertyweek.com/bq-to-buy-watford-park/2003609.article

So it looks like B&Q have been lying about ownership unless they have sold the land since 2000. Although they are under US ownership now I believe B&Q that is. I doubt that Savills manage this site if B&Q own the land nothing on their search page for that postcode.

The bottom line is they will have to give information on the owner of the land if they go to Court. A land registry search would of course tell you.,

4consumerrights

Mysterywoman beat me to it also - Tandon you were given who the landowners were for this site in Newholme's post #12 - AMP Henderson own the site and as the above poster states Savills specialise in property sales and commercial managment.

Google - who owns the arches retail park in Watford
http://www.citygrove.com/index.php/P...WatfordArches

It would also be interesting to see if Parking Eye have a contract and if so, with whom, Savills or the landowners - and if the former do they have the authority to sub-contract the parking area (as the car parks normally form part of the businesses operations)

This is a fairly large complex with multiple retail outlets - so you could try and complain to the other retailers on the same site as this has proven to be successful in other cases - especially if worded that you were browsing/are a customer etc.

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

Your opening defence line was very weak as you should have begun by stating that you did not enter into a contract with PE and then about the inadquate and poor signs - please do go back and take photographs of where these are - how high up they are and the small lettering.

Rattling some more cages & preparing for extra defence - try adding these extra defence points on MCOL :

At the end of February 2013 I parked in what turned out to be a Parking Eye controlled car park for more than the 2 hour "limit"

You don't say how over the "2 hour limit" you were alleged to have been. The BPA's CoP clearly states that grace periods are required when entering the car parking area and after the car parking period has expired before a parking charge notice can be given.

The accuracy of the ANPR system needs to be challenged for accuracy and callibration - eg is it a live feed or pictures stored and transferred to computer system? (read page 2 of Guy's Dads thread regarding POPLA core points - for expansion )

The following three points after checking can also be included in defence:

Have you checked with your local council what the planning consents are for this site. It has already been proven that Parking Eye contravene planning consent with regards to "free parking time limits".

Also check that adequate planning consent has been given for the ANPR systems on site.

Challenge if Parking Eye are paying business rates for the commercial operation of the car parking site or an explanation as to why not. If not if they claim they are not renting the site, then challenge that in this case Parking Eye have
a) no proprietary interest in the land therefore unable to pursue parking charges
b) challenge if suitable consideration has been met for the formation of the contract between Parking Eye and landowner/agent and also the pre-existing contract obligations between the landowner and driver and where no previous charges were imposed prior to Parking Eye's engagement.
c) Challenge here also using PE's own website their car park management skills - i.e that they believe that a regular turnover of vehicles equates to genuine customers - how can this be quantified by imposing a time limit for genuine customers?

http://www.parkingeye.co.uk/ParkingChargeFAQ

[Text removed by MSE Forum Team] is the solicitor who signed the Court Claim papers I received. My understanding is that as she is a paid employee of PE I can challege the £50 'solicitors fees' they are claiming.

Yes this needs to be challenged - we have seen many of the letters that come from PE's legal department all written the same. It is obvious that the solicitor's fees here cannot be justified for what is a template letter stored on PE's computer and then using mail merge to print out hunderds of the same each hour.

mysterywoman10

Me again if you look at the Citygrove link its claims of its achievements are in the past the completion of that project was 1993 bottom right ownership Pearl Assurance (Henderson) which also fits with the property.com link that B&Q bought the whole site in 2000 from Pearl. I think B&Q do own that site although they probably do employ agents to run the site.

According to Savills site they run the Century Park and mention the stores but not the Arches one.

http://savills.completelyretail.co.uk/index.php?p=viewScheme&id=3465

although that link raises a right can of worms look at it!!
So Savills are using their name in front of the domain completelyretail.co.uk!!

To end tonight apparently the Savills have been here since the Norman conquest taken from their website.

Tandon

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

Sorry to butt in but Savills are unlikely to be the owners of the land, they are Management / Estate agents one of the largest in the world a simple google will tell you that. They are mentioned on a couple of other threads. But they can waive the charge with the PC they use on behalf of their clients who own the land. Which of course goes to strengthen the argument that the actual "owners of the land" have not suffered any lost as their interest will purely be investment.

For example another thread I just posted on mentions Savills I googled mainly because I'm starting to delve into the planning side of all this and the other thread Crown Wharf is local to me a vague document I' ve dug up reveals the owners of the land at Crown Wharf are

Hercules Unit Trust c/o British Land Company Plc (British Land),

So in other words a Unit Trust has no loses because someone parked on their land for the purpose of shopping there!

EDIT: on the website you refer to on I think page one i.e. completelygroup..co.uk and the Arches top right their is a sponsored advert for The British Land Company Plc the own the Crown Wharf one although the Arches isn't mentioned on any of the companies advertising on the British Land Plc's portfolio.

Btw I think their are grounds to complain about that completelygroup website it doesn't hold the proper information it should i.e. an company name, registration,address etc.

Is completelygroup.co.uk from the other thread as I've not mentioned it? Incidentally iy leads to a cleaning company, I think it is completelygroup.com. From their website "CompletelyRetail.co.uk (CR) is a free-to-view specialist retail listings website showing available shops across the UK and Ireland". I've not been able to find anything on their web site that lists properties they own.

Tandon

4consumerrights wrote: »

Mysterywoman beat me to it also - Tandon you were given who the landowners were for this site in Newholme's post #12 - AMP Henderson own the site and as the above poster states Savills specialise in property sales and commercial managment.

Google - who owns the arches retail park in Watford
http://www.citygrove.com/index.php/P...WatfordArches

It would also be interesting to see if Parking Eye have a contract and if so, with whom, Savills or the landowners - and if the former do they have the authority to sub-contract the parking area (as the car parks normally form part of the businesses operations)

This is a fairly large complex with multiple retail outlets - so you could try and complain to the other retailers on the same site as this has proven to be successful in other cases - especially if worded that you were browsing/are a customer etc.

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

Your opening defence line was very weak as you should have begun by stating that you did not enter into a contract with PE and then about the inadquate and poor signs - please do go back and take photographs of where these are - how high up they are and the small lettering.

Rattling some more cages & preparing for extra defence - try adding these extra defence points on MCOL :



You don't say how over the "2 hour limit" you were alleged to have been. The BPA's CoP clearly states that grace periods are required when entering the car parking area and after the car parking period has expired before a parking charge notice can be given.

The accuracy of the ANPR system needs to be challenged for accuracy and callibration - eg is it a live feed or pictures stored and transferred to computer system? (read page 2 of Guy's Dads thread regarding POPLA core points - for expansion )

The following three points after checking can also be included in defence:

Have you checked with your local council what the planning consents are for this site. It has already been proven that Parking Eye contravene planning consent with regards to "free parking time limits".

Also check that adequate planning consent has been given for the ANPR systems on site.

Challenge if Parking Eye are paying business rates for the commercial operation of the car parking site or an explanation as to why not. If not if they claim they are not renting the site, then challenge that in this case Parking Eye have
a) no proprietary interest in the land therefore unable to pursue parking charges
b) challenge if suitable consideration has been met for the formation of the contract between Parking Eye and landowner/agent and also the pre-existing contract obligations between the landowner and driver and where no previous charges were imposed prior to Parking Eye's engagement.
c) Challenge here also using PE's own website their car park management skills - i.e that they believe that a regular turnover of vehicles equates to genuine customers - how can this be quantified by imposing a time limit for genuine customers?

http://www.parkingeye.co.uk/ParkingChargeFAQ

Yes this needs to be challenged - we have seen many of the letters that come from PE's legal department all written the same. It is obvious that the solicitor's fees here cannot be justified for what is a template letter stored on PE's computer and then using mail merge to print out hunderds of the same each hour.

No, Newholme's post #12 is wrong. Citygrove built the retail park then sold in on completion. I wrote to them several weeks ago about this. They did tell me that around 2012 it was owned by Aegon UK Property Fund but did not know if that was still the case. B&Q told me it is owned by Savills so I wrote to them. It is sounding like Savills are the managing agents, in which case they are presumably the ones which will have engaged Parking Eye and the ones to chase?

I have asked PE for a copy of their contract but no response so far. It is not that complex a site, just B&Q, Mothercare, another retailer and a burger stall.

The draft defence posted here was changed to a briefer bullet point defence and did deny the charge in full. I have already yaken photos of the entrance and signs. However, since I parked, they have increased the max stay from 2 hours to 3 and mounted the signs slightly lower but still out of a drivers line of sight. According to PE I was 39 minutes over the 2 hours.

The additional points are noted but how do I check the planning consents, it is not my local council?

Stroma

Go to the council planning website of that area, normally you will find some planning on there for that area as there is always something for retail parks etc

Tandon

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

Me again if you look at the Citygrove link its claims of its achievements are in the past the completion of that project was 1993 bottom right ownership Pearl Assurance (Henderson) which also fits with the property.com link that B&Q bought the whole site in 2000 from Pearl. I think B&Q do own that site although they probably do employ agents to run the site.

According to Savills site they run the Century Park and mention the stores but not the Arches one.

http://savills.completelyretail.co.uk/index.php?p=viewScheme&id=3465

although that link raises a right can of worms look at it!!
So Savills are using their name in front of the domain completelyretail.co.uk!!

To end tonight apparently the Savills have been here since the Norman conquest taken from their website.

The completelyretail.co.uk is only a marketing site and is not Savills site. Savills just have a section on it located by it being set up as a section denoted by preceeding the actual site with the name savills. Do you have a link to the search facility you used to find the info on the Centuary park, only when I try searching the site I just get lists of available retail units rather than details of a particular retail park?

Tandon

Stroma wrote: »

Go to the council planning website of that area, normally you will find some planning on there for that area as there is always something for retail parks etc

Ok thanks. I give it a try, though if it is anything like my local council planning web site I'll be lucky if I can find anything without an application number. I've also got to try to find the name of the planning authority for the area, it's unlikely to be something simple like Watford. I'll do some Googling.