Parking Eye Charge Aberdeen

bazster

What utter tosh. PE have loads of sites in Scotland, you might as well ask the same question about all of them. And the answer is this: 60% of mugs pay up on receipt of the NtK, they've never even heard of PoFA, keeper liability, or the differences between Scots law and English law.

Hundreds of thousands of people have received PE fake fines in Scotland, and probably thousands of them have given away the fact that they were the driver, and have gone on to ignore after having their appeal rejected. How many have been taken to court? Not a single one.

As always your enthusiasm for the fight is admirable but you are helping no-one by scaremongering and fantasising.

The advice this OP needs is "ignore". He doesn't need to be told he's going to get a court claim against him when he isn't.

Guys_Dad

enfield_freddy wrote: »

and for the 3rd and final time of saying " "just my opinion" "

I'm not going to bother replying again , because you are just repeating the same question when it has been answered!

It does appear that PE have no history of cases in Scotland - although VCS are pretty litigious there.

Having said that, the PPC world is a small one and, if one PPC has resounding success in Scotland, then others may follow suit.

enfield_freddy

well you had to reply , after going back re reading and trying to scrape more odd words to turn around.


in an ideal situation PE would accept that the OPs first appeal was written incorrectly , and accept his second appeal and say "ok we are sorry to bother you , have a nice day"


but in the real world , they wont , they will then send the swarm of "debt collectors" letters , which as we know the OP will now file away.


we now come to that point , PE will file this down to "knows the law" ,and right off their time , effort and money spent chasing this.


there has been so much publicity in Scotland regarding PPCs , that your 60% is tosh!


PE do not work for no income , so unless they change there system to one that the supermarket pays them for being on site (and the supermarket retains moneys) PE are on very low odds




however I wish the OP the best of luck , and hope he is not reposting in a few months time with bad news.


I have said all along , this is an alternate opinion , of what might happen. just because a chart says they haven't bothered with court yet , does not mean they won't start doing this.


the likes of VCS and horizon , (and CEL) have already started doing this , as the income fron England has been eroded away.

bod1467

enfield_freddy wrote: »

there has been so much publicity in Scotland regarding PPCs , that your 60% is tosh!

As you are so fond of saying, that is your opinion.

My opinion is that you are wrong ... 60% is likely still a conservative figure even after the publicity. Joe Public tends to believe official-looking things they get through the post, and will often forget about publicity they've previously seen.

And as regards PE in Scotland - they have LOTS of sites up here. I know - I've seen several of them myself. I've even parked in one of them (Regent Centre in Aberdeen) one time.

Iceweasel

The general public in Scotland are just as ignorant of the laws of the part of the UK they live in as the general public in other parts.

I even had a guy in an Inverurie supermarket car-park threaten to phone the police because I parked in a parent and child space with no child. Gee - was he angry and foul-mouthed.

The PPCs in Scotland make a huge amount of income from those who pay up without a murmur.

They don't need to resort to any courts - yet - but that could change of course.

What they put in their letters to keepers is a load of unenforceable cr*p - but it works in enough cases where the 'offender' hasn't a clue.

I have broken the 'rules' on countless occasions, and would welcome any contact with any PPC operating in Scotland - as I'm up for a bit of fun with them - but despite trying my hardest by ignoring all displayed restrictions, they don't seem to want to write to me.

I personally haven't had a speculative invoice for over 4 years - but several of my friends and relatives have - and all of them now just ignore completely.

Any response to a PPC in Scotland usually brings extra letters claiming all sorts of nonsense that will never happen lasting up to a year before they give up.

Ignore them and you get up to 5 or 6 letters at approx monthly intervals.

I use the King Street Morrisons regularly and park wherever I please - except in disabled bays - but that's by my choice, not in fear of Parking Eye.

bazster

enfield_freddy wrote: »

well you had to reply

Yes I did, because wrong advice is worse than no advice and if you persist in giving wrong advice I will continue to call it.

bazster

enfield_freddy wrote: »

I have said all along , this is an alternate opinion , of what might happen. just because a chart says they haven't bothered with court yet , does not mean they won't start doing this.

You're moving the goalposts now. If you'd said first off that there is a (vanishingly small) possibility that the OP could be the first person ever to be taken to court by PE in Scotland then you'd have been right. Not particularly helpful, but right.

But that's not what you said. You said this:

"parking eye (Scotland) + named driver = CC claim"

You stated it as a fact: there will be a court claim. It was wrong, it was misleading, and it was most definitely not helpful to the OP.

enfield_freddy

well in that case I will remove the first line , and make humble apologies to you all , however I will add an additional line(s),


"parking eye (Scotland) + named driver = CC claim


they will however loose your second appeal , and rely on the first

once parking eye realise you have made a mistake, they with state that you admit to being the driver they will hound you with debt collectors letters and threats , "if" PE decide to "dip there toe" into court action in Scotland (as other smaller companies are now doing), then the OP would be a likely candidate for them to try there actions on!

unfortunately , you have no POPLa "safety net"


feel happy now? , or are those two statements misleading and untruths?

System

unfortunately , you have no POPLa "safety net"

There is legislation coming along to suggest that there will be some form of ADR. Perhaps POPLA but if not some default ADR.

The nickers twisting at the BPA is the lack of 'keeper liability'

But going back to the issue in hand, sending out threats to anyone (even keeper/drivers) in Scotland saying the Keeper is liable just gets you into court on fraud charges.

So until such times as matters change, keeping quiet is the recommended way forward.

Unless of course you have some other information we are not aware of - or contacts in the PPC industry you can ask

enfield_freddy

But going back to the issue in hand, sending out threats to anyone (even keeper/drivers) in Scotland saying the Keeper is liable just gets you into court on fraud charges. the OP admitted to being the driver

So until such times as matters change, keeping quiet is the recommended way forward. see reply above





Unless of course you have some other information we are not aware of - or contacts in the PPC industry you can ask


?