MSE News: Legality of private parking fines to be tested in court today

Optimist

A chip shop owner has lost his Court of Appeal challenge over what he claimed were "unfair, unlawful and disproportionate" parking charges.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-32429649

enfield_freddy

blimy , thought I had read this somewhere else ?

megsky

parking eye are fraudulently trying to claim money from me by deception I got a letter from them with photo of my car arriving at hindpool retail park at 14.00 and a photo of my car leaving the car park at 19.00 and saying pay fine but the truth is I visited the retail park twice that day to go to aldi at 14.00 then leaving at about 15 minutes later after being served at aldi , I then returned at around 19.00 and again after getting served at aldi I left the car park, parking eye only show me coming at 14.00 and leaving at 19.00 the thing is I have the receipts of my both visits and have sent copies to parking in my appeal but if I did not have the receipts I would have no proof and its my word against theirs .When they know they are lying, how can they do this surely it is illegal what they are doing. I also got in touch with aldi and they said that parking eye are aware that I visited the retail park twice that day ? and then they said the fine could be for returning to the car park with in 4 hours [which there is a no return policy of 4 hours ,which I did not know , what if you forget something and return to the car park not knowing you can be fined ] but as you can see its over 5 hours before I returned [if they wanted to try and change the reason why they are fining me]then aldi defending parking eye said that parking eye are there to stop the car park being abused ,yes that's ok but what about when they are abusing the drivers using the car park by falsifying photos






















,then aldi defending parking eye said that parking eye are there to stop the car park being abused ,yes that's ok but what about when they are abusing the drivers using the car park by falsifying photos

Northlakes

First start your own thread! Read and understand the NEWBIES thread.

Follow those rules not identifying the driver and a poster will give advice.

Paddy_Ray

Received invoice from PE which I contested and then ignored. Original fee was for £100 now with costs. After many letters and me standing my ground the treats and letters ceased and I have heard no more in over one year. Now I have received a letter from PE requesting £170 sighting a recent court case which agrees £85 is acceptable. I notice the signs in the car park have now all been altered from £100 to £85. Do I still keep refusing to pay?

ScoobyZ

Paddy_Ray wrote: »

Received invoice from PE which I contested and then ignored. Original fee was for £100 now with costs. After many letters and me standing my ground the treats and letters ceased and I have heard no more in over one year. Now I have received a letter from PE requesting £170 sighting a recent court case which agrees £85 is acceptable. I notice the signs in the car park have now all been altered from £100 to £85. Do I still keep refusing to pay?

Hi we have just had this and ignored all letters as advised on these forums (they do not know who driver is). Forgot all about it as it was a couple of years ago. Now had a letter and see there was a Parking Eye case they won.

Do we continue to ignore? I'm at work at moment and don't have letter in front of me, but it's along the lines that they will be passing to a debt recovery if we don't pay £185.

pogofish

ScoobyZ wrote: »

Hi we have just had this and ignored all letters as advised on these forums (they do not know who driver is). Forgot all about it as it was a couple of years ago. Now had a letter and see there was a Parking Eye case they won.

Do we continue to ignore? I'm at work at moment and don't have letter in front of me, but it's along the lines that they will be passing to a debt recovery if we don't pay £185.

MSE don't issue parking tickets - and you agreed not to hijack threads!

We also stopped advising people to ignore around three years ago so you didn't get that by reading current info on here.

Please read the Newbies Sticky - then start your own thread if you need to, although I have a feeling that Post four will sort you out completely.

ScoobyZ

pogofish wrote: »

MSE don't issue parking tickets - and you agreed not to hijack threads!

We also stopped advising people to ignore around three years ago so you didn't get that by reading current info on here.

Please read the Newbies Sticky - then start your own thread if you need to, although I have a feeling that Post four will sort you out completely.

I can't see anything about hijacking? Can you link to it?
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/site/forum-faqs

Are you a moderator?

Have you read this bit?

Please be nice to all MoneySavers. That’s the forum motto. Remember, the prime aim is to help provide info and resources. If you don’t like someone, their situation, their question or feel they’re intruding on ‘your board’ then please bite the bullet and think of the bigger issue. A Guardian article once "doffed its cap" to this forum as being the one place where consumers can collect together and fight back. Our job is to help keep it that way.

mas4rr

Ringside Refreshments
Neachells Lane
Willenhall
WV13 3RG
5 July 2016

Your Ref. Number:xxxx

Vehicle registration number:xxxx

Dear Sirs,

We write further in relation to your two separately received correspondences both dated 27 June 2016 that is in response to our previous letter of 15 June, to which you have provided the narrative of the legal principles and to your auspicious case studies in order to be furnished aptly with the actual drivers particulars, the contents of which have been noted.

Attention is drawn to one of your letter subsections by now clarifying that we never asserted in our letter to you that our business were working on site at this car park.

The factual background is that unfortunately our company does not hold any daily log records of the several employed drivers that freely use any of these vehicles. We have diligently challenged all the drivers on this matter and as expected none of them have admitted liability to this dispute. It is assumed at the alleged time of day that the driver for private use has used this vehicle without permission, as the nature of our business has no material cause to use this said car park.

In the relevant “Act(s)” you have notified that your firm is entitled to be provided with details of the responsible driver. Therefore, by reason of the above paragraph, your firm essentially now needs to irrefutably identify the driver by providing evidence that clearly shows imageries of the responsible driver in charge of that vehicle at that time on that actual car park, as it has not been helpful with the inadequate PCN invoice images you have previously provided. Therefore, please furnish this information in order that this can be taken further, as with all the parties concerned it cannot fulfill these “Act(s)” so as to be in compliance.

Furthermore, for transparency purposes, please provide genuine copies of satisfactory evidence that you do hold a complete and valid “contract(s)” which also shows the names, addresses and signatures that your firm “Parking Eye” has the permitted authority from both the Landowner and its managing agent to this particular car park grounds.

Our business is governed by the “Partnership” and it reiterates that it still does not accept and rejects your directed and untenable PCN invoice demand for settlement. This is prejudiced as it indeed did not knowingly agree to enter into any such legal binding contact with your firm as a registered company keeper, it cannot therefore be held accountable for the activities or debt of this unknown driver, irrespectively.

We now await the aforesaid information in due course.

Yours faithfully
Mark Smith
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 17 August 2016 reply xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dear Mark Smith

Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

An Appeal has been opened with the reference 6xxxxxx.

Parking Eye Ltd have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge.

Yours sincerely

POPLA Team

beamerguy

mas4rr wrote: »

Parking Eye Ltd have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge.

Yours sincerely

POPLA Team

GREAT ..... please post this in the POPLA appeals thread at the top of the main page