ParkingEye Telford Bridge

109

Hi received a pretend parking charge notice reminder this week but I have not received anything previously from parking eye. Apparently I over stayed my welcome at the shops. 2 nice photos of my car, 1 entering a mini island before the car park and the second taken while going away from the same mini island taken 05/07/2014. Nothing mentioned about protection of freedom act 2012 but does say payment due to parking eye (as the creditor) and looks to be dated 19/07/2014.
Took a trip back yesterday 26/07/2014, after checking goggle street view. To confirm that the camera is right on the entrance to one car park pointing across the mini island.
1/ as this menacing demand for money did not reach me till after 14 days do I ignore it / appeal stating they took too long to notify?
2/ can anyone confirm if the road leading to the car parks is still a public highway or a private road. Forgot to mention road leads to car parks for B&Q Maplin Mother care and what looks to be separate car park for Pizza hut.

GrouchoMinx

Don't ignore.

That's what I did and ended up with court papers! - stayed pending outcome of PE v Beavis.

See Pepipoo or Parking-prankster for your best response - lots to read, probably advise to go through POPLA.

Good luck :-)

Dee140157

Gm is right, don't ignore.
However you only have to go as far as the Newbie thread on this forum to find all the advice your need to appeal this. (see signature)

A parking company has up to 6 years to chase a PCN. However as it was received after the 14 days, this just means they can't claim keeper liability, so you make that a final point (or first point) in your initial appeal and when this gets rejected it also becomes a point at POPLA

However this is very close to the POFA time scale, so if sent first class and they might claim it arrived in time as strictly

(5)The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.

Guys_Dad

Here is it as it is.

You broke the t&c for the car park and PE are now trying to stiff you for £100 or less if you cough up early.

Forget any clever technicalities you may have thought of to get off. You are getting advice here from people that know what they are doing - check the POPLA DECISIONS thread to confirm.

Follow the newbies thread like a sheep and you will avoid being a lamb to the slaughter!

109

OK Guys Dad / Dee140157, so I just copy the SHORTENED TEMPLATE APPEAL from Coupon-mad onto PE web site and not mention anything about just getting the reminder ?

Redx

correct, how easy was that ?

109

Hi now got POPLA ref from PE along with I presume is their usual waffle but this say HHJ Moloney QC has recently presided over a court hearing PE V Berry Bevis and Martin Wardly and found that a parking charge of £85 could not be considered an unenforceable penalty. Then goes on to say within this judgement it was found that the proper modern approach to whether a charge was a penalty was not by assessing whether it was a pre-estimate of loss or not but rather by examining the clause from three overlapping perspectives.
7.12 Analysis and discussion
It appears to me on the basis of the above authorities thal the proper modern approach to deciding
whether any particular clause is unenforceable as a penalty must be a global one, examining the clause from three overlapping perspectives:
i. proportionality to actual loss; ii' tendency to deter rather than
compensate; and iii. commercial justification / fairness, with a view to deciding whether, considered in the round, it is so extravagant, urconscionable and unjustifiable that the courts aught not to give effect to it.

The Judge examined ParkingEye's Parking Charge amount using this approach and
found that the charge was proportionate (i.e. not extravagant) and evidently not
unconscionable He also found that the charge was commercially justified.
7.16 and 7.17 are also included with 7.12 but for some reason all 3 are slanted on the on page and end up as mostly garbage when copied and pasted from PDF to word. They also sent their FAQs, How was a contract formed with the driver? Is the Parking Charge enforceable. is it a penalty? and more. So is this still garbage from PE and still to be ignored? Do I still just send of POPLA and do I mention their camera does not monitor entry and exit of the car park but only the far side of a mini roundabout which I see as a public highway?

Umkomaas

And this is how you rebut their Beavis stuff in your POPLA appeal. And POPLA have ruled against PE in this context and in favour of the motorist, so don't be worried about it. The fact is that the case is going to the Court of Appeal - conveniently omitted in the PE drivel.

Neither is this charge 'commercially justified'. In answer to that proposition from a PPC which had got over-excited about the ParkingEye v Beavis small claims decision (now being taken to the Court of Appeal by Mr Beavis anyway) POPLA Assessor Chris Adamson has stated in June 2014 that:

''In each case that I have seen from the higher courts,...it is made clear that a charge cannot be commercially justified where the dominant purpose of the charge is to deter the other party from breach. This is most clearly stated in Lordsvale Finance Plc v Bank of Zambia [1996] QB 752, quoted approvingly at paragraph 15 in Cine Bes Filmcilik Ve Yapimcilik & Anor v United International Pictures & Ors [2003] EWHC Civ 1669 when Coleman J states a clause should not 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 supports the principle that the aim of damages is to be compensatory, beginning with the idea that the aim is to put the parties in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed. It also seems that courts have been unwilling to allow clauses designed to deter breach as this undermines the binding nature of the initial promise made. Whilst the courts have reasonably moved away from a strict interpretation of what constitutes a genuine pre-estimate of loss, recognising that in complex commercial situations an accurate pre-estimate will not always be possible, nevertheless it remains that a charge for damages must be compensatory in nature rather than punitive.''

109

Thanks Umkomaas, so I just do my POPLA appeal and add this in somewhere, what about photos of car on a public highway and not entering /leaving car park, or do I leave that for a complaint to DVLC?

Umkomaas

Thanks Umkomaas, so I just do my POPLA appeal and add this in somewhere, what about photos of car on a public highway and not entering /leaving car park, or do I leave that for a complaint to DVLC?

Just a reminder of what Guys Dad said to you 3 weeks ago

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Here is it as it is.

You broke the t&c for the car park and PE are now trying to stiff you for £100 or less if you cough up early.

Forget any clever technicalities you may have thought of to get off. You are getting advice here from people that know what they are doing - check the POPLA DECISIONS thread to confirm.

Follow the newbies thread like a sheep and you will avoid being a lamb to the slaughter!

Chasing shadows is expending energy that could be far more usefully employed putting together a bombproof POPLA appeal. If you read any of the last 3-4 months of PE POPLA appeal decisions you should know that PE no longer defend them, easy default win for the motorist.

So that's a pointer for the direction in which you should now proceed.

Coupon-mad

109 wrote: »

Thanks Umkomaas, so I just do my POPLA appeal and add this in somewhere

It's already in the latest example PE POPLA appeal in the Newbies thread.