ParkingEye @ Worksop Priory Shopping Centre

davedru

Hi all,

I'm after some advice and general help please.

I appealed to ParkingEye, using the template from the Newbies template, in response to their 'parking charge' from 22 January at Worksop's Priory Shopping Centre.

I have received 2 letters from them: the first is a Rejection of Invalid Invoice where it is stated that they '.....manage (the private land) in line with the landowner's directions.....'

'All invoices issued to ParkingEye in relation to any alleged loss, cost or expense or payments sought in relation to payment, appeal or any other issue by motorists are categorically rejected.'

'You have not formed a legally binding contract with ParkingEye, under which any rights to invoice for payments for good or services may arise; therefore as stated your invalid invoice is rejected.'

Their second letter, received on the same day as the first (4th March), is of more bulk and states that my appeal has been unsuccessful due to the fact that parking tariffs apply at this car park.....'On further investigation our records show that insufficient time was paid for on that date of the parking event.'

Indeed, the missus overstayed by 22 minutes, having paid to park for only 2 hours.

This letter refers to a court hearing presided by HHJ Moloney QC (PE vs Barry Beavis and Martin Wardley) and found that PE's parking charge of £85 could not be considered an unenforceable penalty. They state that he is the most senior judge to have heard a private parking matter and his judgment is very persuasive in, what HHJ Moloney QC himself listed, a test case.

It is stated that the judge ruled in ParkingEye's favour on all of the legal points raised by the defendants, and describes briefly how he came to this decision.

Before listing a load of FAQ's, their letter highlights that a number of my queries are of a generic nature, a number of which they have seen before - I wonder how many defendants have seen the letter I have received from PE??

As a gesture of goodwill they have extended the discount period for a further 14 days from the date of this letter (26th Feb)!! They have enclosed an appeal letter for POPLA but have also warned that, if any appeal to POPLA is unsuccessful I will be liable for the full amount.

So, are PE correct in what they state? Did the 'test case' by HHJ Moloney QC really ruled in favour of unfair parking charges? What does this mean?

Can anyone offer advice in how I should proceed please?

Thanks,
DD

Grimble

This is the case at the court of appeal. Use your POPLA code and post your POPLA appeal up here for one of the experts to look at.

enfield_freddy

the "test case" has been taken to the court of appeal , see this : http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/parkingeye-v-beavis-court-of-appeal.html#comment-form


and this:
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/parkingeye-v-beavis-whats-it-all-about.html#comment-form


now PE might just have shot themselves in the foot by referring to bevis


read this: and act


http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/parkingeye-fail-to-impress-s!!!!horpe.html#comment-form


once you understand how this scum work , you can fire back

Ralph-y

Have you tried google

" are PE correct in what they state? Did the 'test case' by HHJ Moloney QC really ruled in favour of unfair parking charges?"

hear is a clue PE are a PPC that means they lie hence why they are often refered to as ParkingLie

The appeal to the case was heard this week just gone and we all await the judgment ........

I could try and list all the crimes that ParkingLie committed with that sentence but I would need a new keyboard after finishing it!

Search the forum with any combination of

"HHJ Moloney QC (PE vs Barry Beavis"

on second thoughts don't you might break the forum search feature :rotfl:

joking aside any solicitor / company behaving as such deserve what they (I hope) get

Carry on with a forum based POPLA appeal and WIN

Ralph:cool:

The_Deep

If the Beavis case goes against them they are going to look a bit daft if their threats reach the desk of a Trading Standards Officer.

enfield_freddy

but PE lie , PE are owned by capita capita are in bed with the government on sooo many contracts


PE cannot loose the case , smoke screens and mirrors , just before an election

trisontana

Just to highlight PP's blog:-

if you have received communications from ParkingEye which referred extensively to the Beavis case but did not mention it is under appeal, you could consider complaining to the solicitors regulatory Authority.

Herzlos

Presumably worth a complaint to the bpa too.

BenefitMaster

davedru wrote: »

So, are PE correct in what they state? Did the 'test case' by HHJ Moloney QC really ruled in favour of unfair parking charges? What does this mean?

Can anyone offer advice in how I should proceed please?

Thanks,
DD

There is a descriptive eight letter term often used. It's general meaning is Male Bovine Excrement.

This is what ParkingEye are doing. They are provably lying to people about the Beavis Case.

You should write back to them, CC to BPA, pointing out that they must either accept or reject your appeal, and as they have done neither, you are going to complain to the ICO and the DVLA about their misuse of your personal data.

Coupon-mad

It's quite random now that some appellants are getting that letter with a POPLA code and some with a '14 day delay for further evidence'. EVERYONE is getting a version of that letter now, seen it dozens of times in cases I am helping with.

You are luckier than some, you have a POPLA code (don't use the 'POPLA letter' for Pete's sake). Simple - do this online to POPLA and adapt the most suitable ParkingEye example template in our sticky 'Newbies thread' post #3 'How to win at POPLA'.

If you're tempted to come back after looking at the POPLA website, saying 'but there are only 4 headings to appeal to POPLA and my case doesn't fit them' please don't, or one of the regulars here will self combust. Your case fits POPLA, you have a POPLA code. Use the info in post #3 of the NEWBIES thread.

BenefitMaster wrote: »

You should write back to them, CC to BPA, pointing out that they must either accept or reject your appeal, and as they have done neither, you are going to complain to the ICO and the DVLA about their misuse of your personal data.

No, he's got the version with the POPLA form attached & POPLA code at the top of the letter, so he now has a couple of weeks to lodge the appeal.

Grimble wrote: »

This is the case at the court of appeal. Use your POPLA code and post your POPLA appeal up here for one of the experts to look at.

Seconded.

davedru

I've remembered I'd not been on here for a while to thank everyone for their assistance.......

Unfortunately, a young family, shift work and the easter break has meant that I missed the '28 days from the date [the operator's decision] was sent' to file my POPLA appeal.

There is a statement about sending in late appeals - the assessor may be able to consider under limited circumstances. Unfortunately I don't really have any real reasons other than bad time management :-(

I intend to send my appeal in anyway - at least then I've tried, albeit late!! Makes me feel a little sick that PE are going to think they've 'won' :mad:. Where do I stand on 'resetting the clock' and naming the driver - is it now too late for this too?

Thanks for the help - it's a shame that you can't help people who don't help themselves though :doh:

DD