Claiming Back

atilla

gertysingh wrote: »

Which private parking company are you part of?

woosh.

Sorry but even a cursory read would explain all.

gertysingh

err coffee:coffee:

gertysingh

hoohoo wrote: »

Having laid the groundwork for reclaiming your charges, once you win at POPLA (PE are not even defending at the moment if you put in a good appeal), then you send them a bill, followed by a letter before action if they do not pay up.

At this point, you then decide to file a court claim against them or not. BenefitMaster is currently going through this process, so it is worth waiting to see if he wins or not. Currently I believe he is waiting for the courts to set a date for a hearing.

If he wins no doubt he will publish template letters here so others can follow in his footsteps and the parking companies will have another set of templates to complain about.

Was thinking to send them an invoice now with a discount before the Popla result as there are a number of issues with their defence evidence. Wanna share one of them with you cos I am amazed they didn't see this. On different pages they displayed pictures of their signage....sorry can't seem to put a picture in.....

argghhh - looks like I've got to put it on a website.....hang on

gertysingh

Ok - seems as a new user I can't show you the pictures as can't create links....anyway so the short of it is that they have shown photos of their signs in their defence to show they comply with BPA. The 2 signs that are at Toddington Services:

Sign 1. Cars pay 12 gbp or if you fail to pay 100 gbp
Sign 2. Cars pay 10 gbp or if you fail to pay 90 gbp

So which one should a person pay?

AND I was not the driver - but the parking company have claimed I was and I can prove I was not in the country! .....and there are heaps more that contradict pofa2012 (incidentally they do not state pofa 2012 in any of their correspondence). I told them I was the keeper of the car!

I've got guys in white coats round me to keep me calm!!! Ivor P am after some of what you've got!

Parking-Prankster

You would think a parking company could get their signs right. Pretty much, that's all they need to do. Yet ParkingEye are one of the most incompetent companies around. They could not even get their signage right for the big Cambridge case this week...but as this was not important in the context of that case Mr Foster let it ride. I have helped with a large number of cases now where the signs and maps supplied to me were not correct so perhaps that is not a surprise.


If you can post up pictures on one of the free hosting sites that would be useful (then post but remove the http)


Meanwhile, the fact you were not the driver is interesting in light of the fact they do not appear to be using PoFA 2012. It does mean you can make a complete Horlicks of your POPLA appeal and then have another go by naming the driver.

gertysingh

Mr Prankster - your blog has been a cracking read. I am humbled by yr presence on my post. OK try this for a laugh

s26.postimg.org/nlyp1nk8p/pic2.png
and
s26.postimg.org/l5wvnt261/pic1.png

gertysingh

In their evidence, the 12 gbp fee is the image of "the contract"; the 10 gbp fee is the image of "the signs" that are around the car park area BUT the company state that their full fee is 100 gbp. All their demand communications show an ambiguous generic sign.

I really am having fun with this "charge".....perhaps you might be tempted to over stay at Toddington Services to have a bit of fun?

Ivor_Pecheque

Apologies gerty, think the sun has got to me, feeling a little mischievous ;-)

As Mr Prankster states, Parking Eye, are, a little, errrmm...amateurish.

The stuff they submitted to court as part of their case against us looked like it was thrown together by people of low intelligence.

Just common sense stuff like sending the correct documents out to the correct people at the correct time. Or labelling the documents correctly.

We recieved loads of stuff of Parking Eye, and it was full of contradictions. When we pointed out these contradictions to the company, they sent us out further stuff with even more contradictions and inaccuracies. This culminated in a rather bizarre argument in Court, where Parking Eye's lawyer strenuously denied that Parking Eye had sent out a copy of their contract with the landowner to me. (I was trying to use it as evidence.)

Luckily, it seemed that the Judge had also been sent out a copy of the contract by Parking Eye also.

There was loads of other stuff as well, document keys had been hand crossed out, replaced with other hand written keys. Signage plans/maps etc were inaccurate. It appeared that the left hand of Parking Eye doesn't know what the right hand is doing.

I'm not an expert in legal process, but I'm guessing this sort of stuff is just basic common sense, and I guess, rightly or wrongly, creates an impression. And I'm not having ago at Parking Eye because of the way they treated us, and no doubt thousands of others, just trying to be objective.

Thing is it wouldn't take much fixing.

We did win the case, and was awarded costs against them, (for travel and parking), ironically, they've sent me a duff cheque. :-)

PS apologies to people of low intelligence.

gertysingh

Think some of those PE employees moved over to CP Plus!

Parking-Prankster

It seems like CP Plus are determined to give ParkingEye a run for their money in the 'incompetent signage' department.