Parking eye making a 'kind' offer...

edthedead

To cut a long story short... between us SWMBO and I received 5 parking 'fines' from parking eye within a week referring to incidents up to a year old. I contacted the land owner (morrisons) and then received letters from PE saying they have cancelled 4 out of the 5. Today I received a further letter from Morrisons saying the charge notices have been cancelled with the exception of one which is at the "...enforcement stage."

In have already written to PE and the court asking for it to be referred to POLPA which they (PE) rejected.

I have also received today a letter from PE which I can summarise in quotes:

"It has come to our attention that your were a genuine customer on the date of the Parking Event. Had you corresponded with us earlier, providing proof that this was the case we would have assessed the case and we believe that this matter could have been resolved with no further cost to either party."

"As this has now proceeded to a County Court Claim, we now require you to pay for the cost associated with this... £60... within the next 7 days."

This sounds to me like a last ditch attempt to get money out of us which they know they will not get awarded at court. Anyone else been at this stage??

I can see 2 options, offer them £20 to go away or leave it. If I leave it I doubt they will go to court since they seems to recognise their case is seriously undermined... any advice??

Thanks!

Umkomaas

They are very likely to go to court. They are the most litigious PPC in the UK.

You could attempt to make an offer to them against their £60 charge, it has worked for others, but not everyone. It really depends on how much you want to fight this and your knowledge in being able to do so, if it gets to court.

Redx

I agree, try a low offer and hope they settle , its one think people like bargepole have advocated on here in the past

then wise up in case of any future pcn,s from any PPC, by reading that newbies sticky thread a lot (like we do)

edthedead

An update.

I offered £25 on the basis that this was the court cost listed on their claim. They have rejected this saying they want the full £60 otherwise they will pursue the amount of the original claim.

Can they do this even though they have stated that the original ticket has been cancelled?

Nodding_Donkey

Where did they state the original ticket was cancelled? If they have I would go to court and present that as evidence.

Herzlos

They can pursue anyway for any amount that they want, but you can show the letter where the admit you were a genuine customer to the court, along with the letter where 4 of the 5 invoices were dropped. They'd have an uphill battle trying to justify the claim to the court when they've already stated it's invalid.

Any debts incurred chasing an invalid debt are also invalid. Their only cost here is the £25 court fee, which you've offered to pay and they've rejected, so that'll go against them as well.

jkdd77

There have been a few cases recently where:
1) PE sue a RK to seek to enforce their penal invoices;
2) PE, being merely the agent, have been told by their principal to drop the case;
3) PE write to their intended victim demanding £60 to drop the case;
4) The defendant tells PE where to go;
5) PE end up dropping the case shortly before the hearing.

Whilst there are no guarantees with litigation, I think that there is a good chance that PE will either drop the case at the last minute, or, failing that, that the OP will beat PE in court.

edthedead

Humm... I'm now in a bit of a quandary about what to do!

I'm tempted to reply to them a basically ask them to justify why they demanding £60.

I am also tempted to offer them a little bit more... maybe £40.. but don't really want to do this!

I have contacted Morrisons again to try and get them to confirm in more detail why they have requested the charge to be cancelled and confirm that PE are refusing (the letter I have from them is a bit lacking in detail).

Am I right in thinking all the time we are negotiating it puts the court process 'on hold'? Also I assume that were this to end up in court I can point out that I have attempted to settle outside court but PE have refused?

Thanks!

Redx

I am loathe to pay them a penny, but definitely would not go higher than the £25 mentioned above

they would struggle to win in court if the landowner has cancelled, never mind justify the charges

if you take them to the wire, they will probably fold

also bear in mind you could ask the court for ADR by popla, plus a stay for the beavis case next year, so various options for the future if you needed them

Guys_Dad

PE will have more than the £25 court costs. They are making an offer to cancel and you are doing right to negotiate.

They will have a reason for cancelling the other charges - plausible and who knows, maybe even true. If it gets to court they will make the point that you have refused to contact them, refused to use the POPLA system and are a multiple offender who has done nothing to help them keeping their costs down by corresponding with them.

Your decision not to use the POPLA option ( assuming the cases were all post Oct 12) in multiple cases might not go down well with some judges, so be cautious.

As said, they have issued more court cases than all the others put together so it is a genuine concern.

Your mistake was in not dealing with the initial NtKs when they arose, as you probably now know.

However, you can still use the standard appeal points should it go to court.

Coupon-mad

edthedead wrote: »

Humm... I'm now in a bit of a quandary about what to do! I'm tempted to reply to them a basically ask them to justify why they demanding £60.

I am also tempted to offer them a little bit more... maybe £40.. but don't really want to do this!

We've seen this soooo many times. Pointless to offer £40 IMHO. They'll know you are weakening. Why should you pay a penny, to 'make it go away' when you were a genuine customer (exempt!) which is a misleading omission in the alleged contract?

See this thread, loads of stuff here relevant for you:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5035107

He just got Morrisons to cancel. One letter or two doesn't cut it.

I have contacted Morrisons again to try and get them to confirm in more detail why they have requested the charge to be cancelled and confirm that PE are refusing (the letter I have from them is a bit lacking in detail).

So they will say we've asked PE to cancel but (sob, sob, ) PE say they have 'incurred costs' so they are prepared to cancel 'without prejudice' if you pay the £60. So wait for Morrisons to say this rubbish, then reply and say 'tell you what, I am a regular customer whose family spends £xxxxx per annum between us. How about YOU pay the £60 and better still, kick out Parking Eye as you are in bed with a notorious firm, suing your customers left, right and centre like Civil Enforcement did to the Co-op. Morrisons is being played by a big player and if your Head Office cannot see that then you will lose customers in droves. ParkingEye are not operating a 'traffic space maximisation scheme' as it was sold to you where they told you they would increase footfall. This is well known and Aldi are also suffering at their hands - this modus operandi is not compatible with a customer service-focussed retail ethic. Wise up Morrisons, please. I won't be paying the £60 because my own costs and damages for distress at receiving a court claim are in three figures, as you can imagine. How would you feel if this was your parent getting a court claim for shopping? This is wholly unacceptable - I ask you again, cancel this charge, properly, now.'

Am I right in thinking all the time we are negotiating it puts the court process 'on hold'?

Sorry, absolutely NO.

Also I assume that were this to end up in court I can point out that I have attempted to settle outside court but PE have refused?

Sorry, absolutely NO to that as well. You can't mention it in a hearing. Google a 'without prejudice' offer to understand why not.