Parking Eye - Letter Before County Court Claim

Coupon-mad

meanmrmustard wrote: »

Just a quick question. I now live in Scotland and I hear the laws are slightly different here. Even though the case took place in England will this make any difference to my situation?

Yep it means you are out of jurisdiction if ever they tried a small claim via MCOL. Don't point that out...it's something for your back pocket just in case!

I think that email looks absolutely fine; I would just clarify at the end that it should be treated as an appeal/challenge though in case they are skim-reading:

''Until this happens I am unable to provide a formal response. ''

could be

''Until this happens I am unable to provide a formal response to your Letter before Claim, however, this email does reiterate my challenge points and should be treated as a repeat of the appeal I have already emailed to you, for which I am still awaiting my POPLA code. Don't insult my intelligence by pretending it is too late to use POPLA as the most suitable ADR.''

meanmrmustard

Thanks Coupon, I will change the ending. I have also realised that I forgot to mention that they should reply to me within 14 days etc

Interesting about the Scotland thing. I would have thought that the Law applies to the location of the event and not my new residing address.

Coupon-mad

It's just that MCOL (PE's preferred filing method for their bulk small claims) only covers people with English or Welsh addresses, since an English County Court cannot be allocated for you, as you are out of jurisdiction. PE could try to pursue a person thru the Scottish Court but then they'd fall down on the fact that POFA doesn't apply in Scotland!

Also have a read of this thread if you don't get a response from Dalton Philips quick enough. Not sure if Louise Phillips is still in that job 2 years after this thread but worth a try to include her as well:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4303567

HTH

meanmrmustard

Success

After taking Coupon's advice and contacting Louise Philips at Morrison's I have just had a reply from the person she forwarded on the mail to (she no longer works in that department). I would still recommend copying in the CEO though just to 'prompt' them.

Anyway this is what came back from Stacey Elsworth ([EMAIL="Stacey.Elsworth@morrisonsplc.co.uk"]Stacey.Elsworth@morrisonsplc.co.uk[/EMAIL])

Good morning,

I will arrange for your PCN to be cancelled.

If you had brought this issue to the attention of the store after the first letter we could have stopped it from getting this far. The Parking Controls are not in place to penalise our genuine customers, they are actually there as a benefit to our shoppers as they prevent the car park from being abused by non-shoppers thus ensuring spaces are available.

If you feel that in future you require more time to shop and use the stores facilities please make this known to the customer service desk at the time, they will be able to prevent a PCN from being issued if you need to overstay the maximum time allowance.

Many Thanks
Stacey Elsworth

Property Income Manager

So.... what happens now? I will obviously reply to Stacey thanking her. Is it worth reiterating my point about ParkingEye or shall I just leave it? After all, to me this was never really about the £85 charge. It was about being 'ordered' to pay money to a company who hold no authority whatsoever. And the subsequent harassment which followed. I was just getting into the swing of things with my email table tennis to PE too!

Anyway a big thank you to this thread and all the regulars who take time out to post the extremely useful sticky threads.

One final thing - do I need some sort of confirmation back from Morrison's that this matter has been dealt with?

Redx

ideally you want confirmation from all parties, but especially from PE

I would now email PE and add a copy of this letter and demand a cancellation notice in writing from PE themselves

keep this email safe and also print it, as PE wouldnt have a leg to stand on if they went to court over this once the landowner has decided you should not be taken to court etc

well done for that result and maybe it shows these big companies are actually listening, or maybe they are sick of the complaints and publicity like in the Daily Mail

either way, its a good result, so once again , congratulations on this cancellation

and dont fall for thier platitudes or insisting on a £10 or £50 admin fee etc

cancellation is cancellation , period

meanmrmustard

Thanks Redx. I guess it just shows that cases as old as this one can still be cancelled if you complain directly to the landowner. I am actually impressed and genuinely surprised by Morrison's quick cooperation in the matter.

I made a mistake by following the old advice of ignoring ParkingEye correspondence but this is a perfect example showing that it's not necessarily too late.

Bottom line - Do not ignore PCN correspondence and do not give in and pay the PCN because that seems the 'easier option.'

Oh and if ParkingEye have the nerve to come back demanding 'administration costs' I will politely refuse

Coupon-mad

Glad to see your result and Stacey now gets her email addy on here for customers to complain to:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4766249

Post #3 has her email on it now - and post #1 will show your thread as a link for posterity in a mo.

I would reply to Stacey's email and tell her to please note and pass on at the next meeting about this entire scam they've allowed to take place throughout the UK (i.e. the next time they discuss Parking or the renewal of this shocking contract), that you strongly disagree with her belief that 'they are actually there as a benefit to our shoppers as they prevent the car park from being abused by non-shoppers thus ensuring spaces are available.' In fact it sounds like words put to Morrisons by ParkingEye and Morrisons should take it upon themselves to be much more aware of the real agenda, especially as the Government is taking an interest in this scam as well as the National press in several articles only last week.

- PE are known to simply operate what they sell to retailers as a 'traffic maximisation scheme' which by the general public, is considered to be a 'Parking Eye profits maximisation scheme'.

- Suggest that a simple pay on exit scheme where drivers have to show a receipt or get a token from the cashier to exit electronically, is the simplest and fairest system to ensure the 'captive audience' are all paying customers.

- Inform her that the Government is minded to ban ANPR ticketing on street and quite possibly this could extend to private ANPR as early as next year, so you sincerely hope that Morrisons thinks twice about waving through more years of this protection racket.

- State that it is well recorded that membership of the BPA means nothing as it's just a Trade Body and not a regulator.

- And you firmly believe they have been talked into a contract not fit for a public car park where Morrisons are intent on good customer service, which no private parking company pays any regard to whatsoever. Private parking companies do not work from the same agenda and are wholly unwelcome and unnecessary.

You could finish by saying that:

B&Q allegedly had to pay a six figure sum last year to get rid of ParkingEye to protect their beleaguered customers.

- ParkingEye are the most prolific litigator in the industry, issuing court papers to over 13000 ordinary customers of other businesses last year and causing untold distress.

- And Morrisons may not be aware, but the Co-op are having to cope with their ex-private parking firm (Civil Enforcement) routinely suing genuine Co-op customers a year or more later, such that the Co-op has been paying people off during 2014 but the issue has not stopped as it appears that they had nothing in their contract that can stop the court claims by their ex-agent. Easy to read about to find out that this is true and a current headache for the Co-op, it's been discussed online hundreds of times in 2014 and the Co-op are probably not keen for it to be known.

- And are they aware of ParkingEye v Somerfield where the former were found by the Judge to have used words in their threatening letters to ordinary Somerfield customers which fulfilled the tort of deceit, and Somerfield had to pay a six figure sum to escape the contract?

- ParkingEye using remote cameras on exit does nothing to protect disabled bays and makes no reasonable adjustment of time for disabled customers, contrary to the statutory requirements imposed by that Act on Service Providers (ParkingEye and Morrisons and all retailers, being Service Providers of course), potentially exposing their retailer clients to discrimination claims.

- Suggest that Morrisons might like to refer your points to their legal team before they renew this contract, especially if they have no clause to control the suing of genuine customers either whilst ParkingEye is still their agent or after they dump them. Could be an expensive lesson and customers are certainly saying publicly that they think twice about shopping where PE inhabit car parks.