New Post Advanced Search

ParkingEye, Tower Rd, Newquay

edited 30 November -1 at 1:00AM in Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking
14 replies 2.2K views
PhilHornbyPhilHornby Forumite
13 posts
edited 30 November -1 at 1:00AM in Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking
I'm in need of some help...

I received a PCN from ParkingEye, after overstaying at the Tower Rd car park in Newquay. This initially went to my partner's firm (who's car it is) and was re-directed to me as driver.

I naively thought ParkingEye would drop the matter, when I told them the circumstances: In brief: my teenage daughter had to be evacuated from Fistral Beach by the RNLI lifeguards and I had to return all our beach gear to the car by myself, which took several trips. I then had to rendezvous with the lifeguards, to take her to hospital (where we spent 5 hours).

Being an honourable person, I offered to cover the actual parking amount I owed for the overstay plus a reasonable admin fee. (Don't wince ... I assumed I was dealing with normal human beings at this point)

Needless to say, they rejected my appeal and issued a POPLA code. I couldn't see any point appealing to POPLA as the situation didn't match any of the 'tick boxes' on the form they sent me.

Fast forward - and I have now received a "Letter before County Court Claim". This was dated 20th Oct 2014, but arrived some time towards the end of the week.

On 6/11/14 I responded via ParkingEye's website, with:
"I am in receipt of your "Letter before County Court Claim".I have been away from home for 9 days and have not been able to attend to it before now. I will provide a full response within the next few days."

I've written to the landowners to see if they can help - but I think I've contacted the wrong people :-( ... although Tower Rd car park serves Fistral Beach, I think it is different to "Fistral Beach car park" owned by Britanic Industries.

I've read through the guidance on dealing with a LBCCC and have ascertained that the letter I received from ParkingEye doesn't fully comply, so I'm assuming my next step is to point out these issues. (No explanation as to how the amount has been calculated, no list of documents and the proposal of an unsuitable form of ADR (ie themselves).

If anyone could issue any guidance, it would be most appreciated. This isn't about the money, but the fact that a firm would seek to profit from someone else's misfortune.

This is the text of the LBCCC:-



Dear Sir / Madam,
LETTER BEFORE COUNTY COURT CLAIM
ParkingEye recently rejected your appeal in relation to Parking Charge Notice (please see above reference*), which concerned a breach of the terms and conditions on the 03 August 2014 at Tower Road, Newquay, this charge is therefore levied for breach of contract. At this stage you were given the opportunity to further appeal this Parking Charge through POPLA - the independent appeals service for parking on private land - within 28 days.
The 28 days have now passed and you have not appealed to POPLA or paid the Parking Charge in full. As such, we must inform you that unless payment of £100.00 is made within the next 14 days, further action will be taken and this is likely to lead to court proceedings, which will incur further costs. These costs will include, but are not limited to £50.00 solicitor's costs and £25.00 court claim issue fee. Should you wish to contact ParkingEye (details above and below), you must do so within 14 days of the date of this Letter Before Claim.
Yours faithfully
ParkingEye Legal Department

* Please note, we have used this reference on all correspondence sent to you to date and you should have all the information you may require to understand and investigate the issues by referring to this documentation.

ParkingEye Ltd. PO Box 565, Chorley, PR6 6HT, Registration number 5134454


PAGE 2 (overleaf)
Further Information
1. Please be aware that this Letter Before County Court Claim is fully compliant with the Practice Direction on Pre-
Action Conduct. We must draw to your attention to this Practice Direction
(* URL Given - but removed because I'm a new user here) and in particular to paragraph 4 concerning the court's powers to impose sanctions for failure to comply with the Practice Direction.
In particular, please be aware of CPR 17.1. If legal action is taken, either payment of the full claim amount or a defence to the claim should be made. Once the defence and reply are submitted, the claim will be allocated to a County Court, and a witness statement and documents should be submitted. We would remind the defendant that if they wish to amend their defence, they should submit an N244 Form, and pay the relevant fee. Once permission to amend the defence has been granted, this new defence should be submitted both to the claimant and the court.
The claimant will then reply to this amended defence. We would request that any amendments to the defence are made in good time, so as to allow the claimant to respond fully prior to the filing and serving of witness statements and documents. Further defence points should not be raised in the witness statement.

2. It should also be noted that we are unable to use the Parking On Private Land Appeals (POPLA) Service as Alternative Dispute Resolution at this stage. This is because POPLA will only accept an appeal from the motorist within 28 days of their appeal ('representations') being rejected by the operator. You have not made representations to POPLA in the timescale required. You have been made aware of these timescales in our
correspondence, which stated;
"If you do not now pay the parking charge but want to appeal to POPLA against the operator's decision, you have 28 days to do this."
Indeed POPLA further states on their website that:
We must receive your appeal within 28 days from the date of the operator's notice of rejection. The date the operator sent the rejection to you will be on the appeal form.'
Should this letter be ignored, and legal action taken, further costs will be incurred. However, ParkingEye will remain open to Alternate Dispute Resolution, and suggests that this takes place directly between the two parties on a without prejudice basis. Please put this in writing to the address listed on the front of this letter and ensure such correspondence is clearly marked 'without prejudice'.

3. The loss claimed in this Letter Before County Court Claim is in line with guidelines set out by the British Parking Association. ParkingEye have also ensured that their Parking Charge amount is not punitive and set on the basis of a strong commercial justification for charges of this nature. The charge is proportionate to ParkingEye's loss, and has been calculated using our company records and accounts. The accounts are publicly available. The Parking Charge amounts are calculated in conjunction with the landholder, and have been approved and prescribed by the British Parking Association.

4. As court proceedings have not yet begun, and as no defence has yet been filed, it is impossible for ParkingEye to state exactly the documents that will be relied upon in court. The essential documents will be; all Parking Charge notices that have been sent by us, any defence submitted by you, any reply to defence submitted by us, any document proving ParkingEye's authorisation to operate on site and any signage plan or images of signage from the site in question. These could also include, but are not limited to; the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and the British Parking Association Code of Practice.

5. Please be aware that HHJ Moloney QC recently heard a Test Case in Cambridge to provide a persuasive Judgment to assist District Judges on the most common legal arguments submitted by defendants against the enforcement of Parking Charges in the Small Claims Court. Judgment was found in ParkingEye's favour on all points, including the amount of the Parking Charge and our right to bring the claim. We are happy to provide you with an electronic copy of this Judgment if you so wish.

ParkingEye Limited, 40 Eaton Avenue, Buckshaw Village, Chorley, PR7 7NA, Registration Number. 5134454
«1

Replies

  • surfboy1surfboy1 Forumite
    345 posts
    With regards to point 5 above, did they also tell you that HHJ Moloneys's "TEST CASE" is being appealed and they can not rely on it?


    This is disgusting treatment by PE. I am in constant battle with newquay town council about PE's treatment of visitors to Newquay.
    If it is ok with you I would like to highlight this case with the town council?
    I do not expect much from them though, I just hope my constant complaining will make them think!
  • surfboy1surfboy1 Forumite
    345 posts
    I think Tower Road car park is owned by the golf club. I would word a strong complaint to them .
  • surfboy1 wrote: »
    If it is ok with you I would like to highlight this case with the town council?
    That's fine by me.
    surfboy1 wrote: »
    I think Tower Road car park is owned by the golf club. I would word a strong complaint to them.

    I've found some contact details for the golf club, so I'll give that a go.
  • edited 8 November 2014 at 8:06PM
    Parking-PranksterParking-Prankster Forumite
    313 posts
    edited 8 November 2014 at 8:06PM
    Tower Road is owned by the golf club, who lease it to parkingeye. A complaint to the golf club is in order, but only as a long term strategy to show what kind of people they are leasing to, as they will not be able to get the charge cancelled.


    I have blogged this here
    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/parkingeye-target-man-whose-daughter.html


    I'm happy to help you with this case. My immediate suggestion would be to contact parkingeye and offer to either use POPLA to save costs for both sides, if they will re-issue a valid code, or to save costs by holding off from issuing proceedings until the Beavis appeal, as many court cases have been adjourned by the court until that date.


    I would also suggest contacting Cornwall council to explain how parkingeye are behaving, your MP and your local paper. I could also plug you into the national media, if you want wider publicity.


    Meanwhile, for your 'enjoyment' here is the answer to their point 3.


    http://www.parking-prankster.com/exhibits.html


    Exhibit 28 shows how the charge of £100 was agreed by the parking companies themselves, essentially by deciding how much they could get away with.


    I like this one
    "Currently only one ticket in every three are paying. This means the pcn has to be high because you have to issue three pcn to get one to pay"
    Hi, we’ve approved your signature. It's awesome. Please email the forum team if you want more praise - MSE ForumTeam
  • edited 9 November 2014 at 9:12AM
    Ivor_PechequeIvor_Pecheque Forumite
    745 posts
    500 Posts
    ✭✭
    edited 9 November 2014 at 9:12AM
    There are 3 different Parking Eye controlled car parks on Tower Road, the golf club, the !!!!*y little cafe, and Holy Trinity Church.

    Got chased off the Golf Club when I tried to take photo's there, moved onto the Holy Trinity Church, and had a very interesting debate with "Father Brian." Never thought I'd adopt the moral high ground with a man of the cloth.....he's a nice guy, but a little misguided I suspect. He has the power to "let off" about 12 motorists a year he tells me.


    Newquay is being destroyed by Parking Eye.....just have a look at what Fistral (North End), has achieved this year. They've had a bit of bad luck with the storm damage, the reluctance of Cornwall County Council to pick up the tab, and the exposure of the rocks. Parking Eye has been the straw that has broke the camels back.

    Surfboy, I'd love to share our experience we had at the hands of Parking Eye, and I just love public speaking. Get me an audience, and I'd be happy to share our experience.
    Illegitimi non carborundum:)
  • trisontanatrisontana Forumite
    9.5K posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭
    Rachel Ledson sinks to a new low (if that's possible).
    What part of "A whop bop-a-lu a whop bam boo" don't you understand?
  • Ivor_PechequeIvor_Pecheque Forumite
    745 posts
    500 Posts
    ✭✭
    Maybe worth joining and sharing this on the "Newquay" threads
    Illegitimi non carborundum:)
  • Ryan_BryanRyan_Bryan Forumite
    265 posts
    ✭✭
    trisontana wrote: »
    Rachel Ledson sinks to a new low (if that's possible).

    While still smelling fragrant of course.

    With due respect I don't believe that she sank lower than this.

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4967816&page=9
  • UmkomaasUmkomaas Forumite
    29.6K posts
    10,000 Posts Seventh Anniversary Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    There's only the dead left to pursue. Watch this space .......
    Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
  • Ryan_BryanRyan_Bryan Forumite
    265 posts
    ✭✭
    Umkomaas wrote: »
    There's only the dead left to pursue. Watch this space .......

    We has considered your appeal and believe that the ticket was correctly issued in this case. I know the cemetery personally and there are several signs stating terms and conditions of burial.
    We have forwarded a POPLA code but would advise that Death is merely mitigation.
This discussion has been closed.

Quick links

Essential Money | Who & Where are you? | Work & Benefits | Household and travel | Shopping & Freebies | About MSE | The MoneySavers Arms | Covid-19 & Coronavirus Support