Parking Eye fine at Membury services, M4

Absolutely_Fuming

Is the DVLA allowed to hand over my personal details to PE? Did I agree to this when I became the registered keeper of my car?

Redx

Absolutely_Fuming wrote: »

Is the DVLA allowed to hand over my personal details to PE? Did I agree to this when I became the registered keeper of my car?

a simple google search yields the following info

http://www.ico.org.uk/for_the_public/topic_specific_guides/dvla

HO87

Redx wrote: »

a simple google search yields the following info

http://www.ico.org.uk/for_the_public/topic_specific_guides/dvla

Whether we like it or not the simple answer would have been to say "Yes".

The document at the end of the link provided, whilst originating from the ICO (of whom one might think better) continues to perpetuate the myth that the DVLA, acting as the agent of the Secretary of State, must divulge the details contained on the register. This is what "requires" means. However, as can be seen, this is simply untrue and, as the author is speaking from a position of a detailed knowledge (one hopes), should be more accurately described as disingenuous - at best!

Regulation 27(1) Road Vehicles (Registration & Licensing) Regulations 2002, says:

The Secretary of State may make any particulars contained in the register available for use—

The word "may" specifically allows for the exercise of discretion and at 27(1)(e) the regulations provide the following:

by any person who can show to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State that he has reasonable cause for wanting the particulars to be made available to him.

There is no requirement contained in that section whatsoever and the DVLA could set what reasonable conditions it believed were necessary to safeguard the public data entrusted to it.

Furthermore, after many months of correspondence and debate earlier this year the DVLA finally publicly acknowledged that they do not vet each and every application for details (under this provision) from PPC's - indeed, as far as the electronic link (known as the "EDI") is concerned, it is impossible for them to do so. Upon doing so the DVLA then changed their public pronouncement on the subject which had said that they "carefully vetted" each application a terminalogical inexactitude it had perpetuated until faced down by PPC campaigners.

Any assessment of the foregoing will reveal that not only are the DVLA not exercising the discretion provided to them in the Regulations they are trying to kid us all that they have no such discretion!

Absolutely_Fuming

Happy New Year everybody! Yesterday I received my hotly anticipated unsuccessful soft appeal (#33) from PE with a load of documentation to justify their decision, plus my POPLA code. I've scanned it and converted it to editable text so you can all see it here.

Although it has my name and address at the top I note it's actually addressed to "Dear Sir/Madam" so is this just a generic reply that everyone gets from them? They seem to have gone overboard trying to justify their charges here and haven't answered my other three points at all, apart from a two line comment to the effect that my "other queries" were of a generic nature that we've seen before so "see our FAQs"!

They also cite a number of cases on which judgement has gone in PE's favour and there are lots of references in these to defendants using arguments found in online forums!

Anyway, what follows is their letter and I'd welcome your thoughts on its content:


31 December 2013

Reference: Parking Charge Notice - xxxxxx/xxxxxx
POPLA Ref: xxxxxxxxxx

Dear Sir / Madam,
Thank you for your correspondence in relation to the Parking Charge incurred on 30
November 2013 at 19:28, at Welcome Break Membury (East) car park.
We are writing to advise you that your recent appeal has been unsuccessful. This is
because you have not provided sufficient evidence to show that you did not break the
terms and conditions on the signage.

Pre-estimate of Loss and Commercial Justification
The Appellant has made submissions either stating or indicating that he does not believe that the Parking Charge amount is reasonable and/or a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Parking Eye should make it dear at this juncture that the commonly held legal argument that the amount claimed for breach of contract should reflect the losses incurred by the breach (and if they do not they should be considered a penalty) is no longer the method adopted by Judges when deciding whether a charge is a penalty or not. Recently, Judges have found the commercial justification argument to be more persuasive This legal precedent essentially creates a third category for judging such charges, a charge for contractual breach does not necessarily need to be a pre-estimate of loss to
be enforceable in law. There is much court authority to support this argument and as stated above is commonly held by the Courts as the method in which a contractual charge should be considered either a penalty, a pre-estimate of loss or enforceable on the basis of their being a commercial justification for the charge.

Parking Eye would therefore argue that the charge (and the charge amount) is legally enforceable on the following three grounds a) that there is a strong commercial justification for the charge b) that there is ample case law to suggest that the value of such a Parking Charge is not punitive and c) this notwithstanding Parking Eye can still provide evidence that this charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. We have also attached (Annex) for further evidence a sample of recent court hearings where Judges have not found these charges to be either not a penalty or a genuine pre-estimate of loss. In every case the Judgment - for the full parking charge - was awarded to Parking Eye. This would further substantiate Parking Eyes firm belief that its Parking Charges,
levied for breach of contract are legally enforceable and cannot be classed as a penalty.

a) In Parking Eye Ltd v Mr Shelley (2013), District 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 inprinciple 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 atpp.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 maybe commercially perfectly justifiable."

District Judge Dodd found that, on a balance of probabilities, it was more likely that the dominant purpose of the charges was to provide for regulation of the carpark 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 modem 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?"


Parking Eye 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. Parking Eye does not believe that the terms, set out by the landholder, are unfair. However, if the appellant believed them to be, they should not have parked in the car park.

(b) In relation to the value of the Parking Charge. Parking Eye maintains that its charges are fair and reasonable. Furthermore, Parking Eye firmly believes that its Parking Charges are not punitive or a penalty. A charge of £75 pounds was found by HHJ Hegarty QC in the case of Parking Eye V Somerfield Stores (2011) to be a reasonable charge and not a penalty, by which the motorist would be any bound.

"I conclude that any motorist using the car park would be contractually bound to pay the charge of £75 if he exceeded the specified time limit and a demand for payment was made up on him. Whilst he might argue that the charge in question amounted to a penalty and was therefore irrecoverable, I think he would probably fail in that contention." (HHJ Hegarty QC Parking Eye v Somerfield Stores (2011))

The case of Combined Parking Solutions v Mr Stephen James Thomas (2008) provides further evidence that a Parking Charge of a certain value - in this case one that begins at £60 and rises to £85 and £135 respectively - can be considered fair and reasonable. District Judge Ackroyd found that these amounts could not be considered as a penalty. Nor could he find that it was a disproportionately high sum in compensation. This was upheld by Judge John Robins who ruled that a ParkingCharge of £135 was not unreasonable, being in line with the BPA Code of Practice. Instead he found that it escalated in accordance with the warnings given and constituted a reasonable charge. (Combined Parking Solutions v Blackburn [October 2007]).

Indeed last October after significant pressure from Government and motoring/consumer organisations, the BPA reduced the maximum recommended charge for that a motorist should be expected to pay for a breach of the parking contract or for an act of trespass from £150 to £100. Despite the BPA being unable, due to prevailing OFT legislation, to fix prices at this level, the actions of the Association were welcomed by all stakeholders. In this instance the charge being levied is within the recommendations set outwithin Clause 19 of the BPA Code of Practice.

As per the above the figure of £100, therefore, has been endorsed as a reasonable upper level of charging across the industry and both the Parking Charge amounts and the reduction of 40% for early payment within 14 days were prescribed and approved by the British Parking Association in consultation with the Office of Fair Trade in 2012.

(c) Parking Eye have instructed a Barrister to give his opinion on the matter of pre-estimateof loss. He has stated that, "the burden of proving that the fixed charge amounted to a penalty would be upon the motorist," that Parking Eye 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, "/ 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 Parking Eye, 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 Transportin 2012.
Private car park management is necessary. It prevents abuse of private land and there is a great deal of commercial justification for private car park management as it helps to combat this abuse and also ensures a reasonable turnover of vehicles in the carpark in order to ensure that the optimum amount of motorists can visit a site. If Parking Eye could not make a profit, and operate as a business, it would not be able to provide this commercially justifiable and necessary service to landholders.
Here, Parking Eye 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 Parking Eye is circa £63. Circa 84% of this payment (circa £53) covers Parking Eyes costs. This information has been taken from Parking Eye's company accounts and are publicly available.
Parking Eye 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 Parking Eye 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.
Parking Eye accepts payment of the reduced amount at many stages of its appeal process, including when a motorist who has appealed to Parking Eye is given the opportunity of appealing to the Parking On Private Land Appeals (POPLA) service. It is only if a motorist ignores all Parking Eye correspondence, or loses an appeal at POPLA, that the charge will be increased to the higher amount. At this stage, Parking Eye will have incurred further costs, and this increase is in line with BPA regulations and the terms and conditions set out on the signage.

There then follows an "Annex" which details some recent cases that have gone in favour of PE but I'll have to post that separately as I'm almost up to my maximum word limit now!

Coupon-mad

Yep that's a standard letter a bit like this one (this is a different stage but the same template court cases and commercial justification rubbish):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4835679

I am off to bed now but the big question is not what the letter says (we've seen it all before!) but whether they have given you a POPLA code/form, or whether you need to give them another online prod for it.

Absolutely_Fuming

Yes, they included a POPLA code and a POPLA application form and other POPLA related information. I was editing my post to that effect before I saw that you had replied!

Absolutely_Fuming

And this next bit is the "Annex" which deals with recent cases that PE has won:


Annex

The below cases are not a full list of all Parking Eyes court hearings, they are however every court hearing where the issue of genuine pre-estimate of loss has been raised Since POPLA has been in place. As you can see no Judge has ruled against Parking Eye on this matter.

3QT56025; 19/07/2013
Defendant argued that Parking Eye's parking charge was disproportionate to the loss incurred. The Judge did not find this a persuasive argument.


3QT29139; 23/07/2013
Defendant (using information provided on an online forum) argued that Parking Eye's parking charges: did not amount to a genuine pre-estimate of loss; were disproportionate; that there was no relevant contract between the defendant and Parking Eye; that there was no relevant contract between Parking Eye and the land holder; the Parking Eye's Notice to Keeper was non compliant and that Parking Eye did not have the legal right to issue parking charges on private land. Indeed the defendant stated himself on the very same forum that 'Every point raised by myself (which included every loophole, law, and non-compliance ever raised on [Internet forum name removed]) was summarilydismissed by the Judge.

3QT47038; 31/07/2013
Defendant argued that the charge amounted to a penalty and that no contract had been offered and therefore no contract had been entered into. The Judge stated that there was no defence to the claim and was therefore obliged to grant Judgement as requested.

3QT51425; 01/08/2013
The defendant's defence focused on the ownership of the land and unreasonableness of the charge. Again the Judge summarily dismissed all these arguments instead finding that the charge was not unreasonable and does not amount to a penalty.

3QT35496; 09/08/2013
The Defendant (again using arguments garnered from online forums) argued that the signage on site was insufficient to bring the terms and conditions of parking to the attention of the motorist, that the terms and conditions of parking were unreasonable and that the signage did not conform to British Parking Association (BPA) specifications. He stated that he did not drive the vehicle on the date in question. He stated that the contract formed between the motorist and Parking Eye/the landholder was doubtful and that no offer was communicated to the driver. The defendant stated that the Parking Charge was a penalty and that the sum claimed was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. He stated that the contract (which he had initially stated did not exist) was unfair as evidenced by the Unfair Consumer Terms Act. He stated that Parking Eye, not being the landholder, had no claim. All the defendant's assertions were dismissed, including the notion that any of the terms of the contract breached the Unfair Consumer Terms Act and the Judge granted Judgement in Parking Eye's favour.

3QT58403; 16/08/2013
The defendant's defence contained arguments that the parking charge was unreasonable that she could not see the signage because it was dark and that as she was under 18 years of age she could not be held to the contract. The Judge found firmly against the defendant on all grounds and inparticular adjudged that the contract remained enforceable even with a minor.

3QT62515; 19/08/2013
The defendant's defence was again based on arguments found on online forums. The defendant stated that the particulars of claim that she received disclosed no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim. She later made an application for the claim to be struck out on the basis that the claim amounted to a misrepresentation of authority, based on the assumption that ParkingEye could not bring legal action in its own name. Under question from the Court the Defendant accepted that she had not prepared the application. The Judge found that Parking Eye was clearly entitled to operate, manage and enforce parking on the site, including the taking of legal action if necessary. The Court went on to dismiss the application and the defence and ordered that the defendant paid £200 to Parking Eye.

3QT46928; 21/08/2013
The defendant cited the Consumer Regulations Act 1977, and stated that the Parking Charge amount was disproportionate and did not represent a pre-estimate of our losses. The Judge ruled that the charge was not a penalty and that the charge was fully enforceable.

3QT58459; 22/0812013
The defendant's case was that the defendant had not been driving the vehicle on the day in question, and could not therefore have entered into a contract. He stated that the amount of the Parking Charge did not reflect any loss suffered. The Judge found that Protection of Freedoms Act squarely transferred liability to the keeper and that the charge did reflect the loss suffered and subsequently found in Parking Eye's favour.

3QT61574; 23/08/2013
This forum based defence stated that a contract cannot be formed from the signage onsite, that no consideration is made for drivers who park without payment and therefore no contract is offered to them, that the contract is unfair, that the charges are not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, that Parking Eye has no authority to issue Parking Charges on the land and that our business model is vexatious. The Judge found that the claimant had appropriate authority to operate the car park and that it had been unequivocally confirmed that the claimant has the required locus standi to bring this claim. The Court further found that there was no evidence that could lead to the conclusion that the terms of this contract offended the Unfair Consumer Terms Act or that the charge could be considered a penalty.

3QT62429; 28/08/2013
Another forum based defence, arguing that the charges amounted to an unenforceable penalty and that the Notice to Keeper was non compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The Judge found that the defendant was liable for the sum claimed and gave judgement accordingly.

trisontana

As you may have noticed all those cases date back a few months. What they havn't included are those cases they have lost in the last few months. Including both GPEOL and contract issues - Plus of course those 100 POPLA adjudications they have lost.

Absolutely_Fuming

And this final part contains the FAQs I was referred to because they couldn't be bothered to specifically answer my questions relating to the signage, the ownership of the land and the accuracy of the ANPR equipment:

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

FAQ's

How was a contract formed with the driver?

The Parking Charges issued for and on behalf of the landowner are levied on the basis of a contract with the motorist set out via the signage at the site. The signage sets out the conditions under which a motorist is authorised to park, be that by payment of the appropriate paid parking tariff for by parking within a limited stay period or similar, and that a Parking Charge will be payable, if the conditions are not met. We ensure signage is ample, clear visible and in line with the BPA (British Parking Association) Code of Practice to ensure the motorist is bound by them when they enter and remain at a client site, so that all users of the site are obliged to follow these rules.

A number of cases, such as Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000], prove particularly useful in respect to the creation of a contract with the driver . This is again reiterated in Section 7.1 of the Department of Transport's guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. This provides strong evidence that if the signage and terms and conditions are sufficient it will be considered that the driver
has entered info a contract to park on the land. Also see Combined Parking Solutions v Dorrlngton (2012), Combined Parking Solutions v De Brunner (2007), Combined Parking Solutions v Blackburn (2007) and Combined Parking Solutions v Rees (2007).

Is the Parking Charge enforceable & is it a penalty?
Parking Eye does not issue or collect Penalty Charges, fines or Excess Charges which are only relevant to on-street or civil enforcement area and enforced by police/traffic wardens or council civil enforcement officers under the Traffic Management Act 2004 or the Road Traffic Acts. This legislation is not applicable on private land. We can confirm, however, that Parking Eye has the authority to issue andenforce Parking Charge
Notices, for contractual breach.

Further evidence, that Parking Eyes Parking Charges cannot be viewed as penalties, can be found in Mayhook v National Car Parks and Fuller [2012], Combined Parking Solutions v Mr Stephen James Thomas [2008], Combined Parking Solutions v De Brunner [2007] and, in a case tested at High Court and the Court of Appeal (Parking Eye v Somerfield Stores [2011] and more recently in Parking Eye v Mr Kevin Shelley [2013] where it was found that Parking Eyes Parking Charges were not a penalty and were upheld in court. Furthermore the judge ruled that there was a commercial justification for them.

Is the Parking Charge fair and reasonable?
Parking Eye firmly believes that its Parking Charges are fair and reasonable, Parking Eye's Parking Charges are in line with the British Parking Association guidelines, and have been tested at the Court of Appeal. A charge of £75 was found by HHJ Hegarty QC in the case of Parking Eye v Somerfield Stores (2011) to be a reasonable charge, by which the motorist (when exceeding the specified time limit) would be contractually bound. See also Combined Parking Solutions v Dorrington (2012) and Combined Parking Solutions v Blackburn (2007).

How can the charge be enforceable if there is a reduction for early payment?
The offer to reduce the charge for the first 14 days is not indicative of the fact that it shouldbe considered a penalty. As a matter of practicality there are many commercial situations where a discount is offered for the early settlement of a contractual claim. HHJ Hegarty QC in the case of Parking Eye v Somerfield Stores (2011) stated that this was the case.

Does Parking Eye have the authority to issue Parking Charges?
Parking Eye can confirm that it only operates on sites that are situated on private land, are not council owned and that Parking Eye has written authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices on all of its sites from the landowner.

It must also be noted that any person who makes a contract in his own name without disclosing the existence of a principal, or who, though disclosing the fact that he is acting as an agent on behalf of a principal, renders himself personally liable on the contract, is entitled to enforce it against the other contracting party (Fairlie v Fenton (1870) LR 5 Exch 169). It follows that a lawful contract between Parking Eye and the motorist will be
enforceable by Parking Eye as a party to that contract.

I wasn't the driver, therefore I will not be paying the Parking Charge?
Paragraph 9(2)(b) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, states that the operator must inform the registered keeper that the driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay the parking charge in full. It also notes that, as the operator does not know the driver's name or current postal address, the registered keeper, if they were not the driver at the time, should inform the operator of the name and current postal address of the
driver and pass the notice to them.

The Act also warns that if, after 29 days, the parking charge has not been paid in full and the operator does not know both the name and current address of the driver, they have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from the registered keeper. This warning is given under Paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and is subject to the operator complying with the applicable conditions under Schedule 4 of that Act (which Parking Eye firmly believe it has).

Is Vehicle Control Services v The Commissioners for her Majesty's Revenue & Customs applicable?
The Court of Appeal reversed the decision in March 2013. In this case HM Revenue & Customs was claiming that VCS had to account for VAT as they had no interest in the land and as such were acting as agents. HM Revenue & Customs therefore argued that the retention of Parking Charge Notices was payment for services. However this was found not to be the case in this ruling.This notwithstanding the VAT treatment of Parking Charge Notices remains the same, this was decided in the Tribunal Case, Bristol City Council LON/99/261 and is enshrined within HM Revenue & Customs VAT Brief 57.
Parking Eye accounts for VAT to HM Revenue & Customs on all its Parking Charge Revenue. However the Parking Charge Notice itself remains outside the scope of VAT. Therefore any VAT ruling in respect to VCS does not currently apply to Parking Eye.

Parking Eye must accept or reject my appeal within 35 days?
The clause to which this argument refers to has been amended and has been made accessible to the general public in the latest British Parking Association Code of Practice (June 2013).


Your appeal has therefore been unsuccessful; however, as a gesture of goodwill, we have extended the discount period for a further 14 days from the date of this correspondence.

Please be advised:

· There is an independent appeals service(POPLA) which is available to motorists who have had an appeal rejected by a British Parking Association Approved Operator. The POPLA appeals form and contact information can be found enclosed. See also www.popla.org.uk/uploadevidence.htm.

· If you appeal to POPLA and your appeal is unsuccessful you will not be able to pay the discounted amount in settlement of the Parking Charge, you will be liable to pay the full amount.

A payment can bemade by telephoning our offices on 0844247 2981 or by visiting www.parkingeye.cg.uk or by posting a cheque or postal order to Parking Eye, PO Box 565, Chorley, PR6 6HT.


Yours faithfully


Parking Eye Team

Redx

in their summing up, some popla adjudicators regularly mention that the cases quoted are not relevant to the charge they are assessing

conveniently (or deliberately ) these PPC companies regularly OMIT the cases that they lost in court, or at popla, they also OMIT any other cases with other parking companies that lost in court or at popla !

how very one-sided of them to do this , a bit like a football manager mentioning they scored 5 goals today in their win , omitting that they lost the 9 previous matches by at least 2 goals in each !!!

maybe its like that american cyclist saying he won the tour de france several times, not mentioning the way it was done or that the wins were cancelled after the doping scandal

still, we cannot expect the legal eagles or minions at PE or Excel to give the poor motorist who saved £3.57 on his "bill" a sporting chance in defending a £90 charge , can we ?

I mean, if they did that they could not be going to Cancun for this years 2 weeks holiday !!!