PARKINGEYE ARE CROOKS (please help!)

salmosalaris

Did the signs state "customers only " ?
If so, as the shops were shut , you were not a customer .You were not permitted to park there . No offer of parking was made to you , there is therefore no contract you can be held to .
The most you were was a trespasser for which Parking Eye , as they are not the landowner, cannot bring a claim .

Despite the above being correct IMHO and IANAL , the chances of such a defence winning are probably somewhere between nil and zero unless you find a sympathetic judge .

Having said that it would be fun to defend on this point alone . The judge would be forced to address it and explain why the argument failed .

Post a pic of the signs

peter_the_piper

Can you give a bullet point list of the dates , it would help people to put it into context. Plus details of the alleged offence and what paperwork you have had.

Nileonfire

Yes, the signs did say customers only. I'll sort through my paperwork and set out the dates tomorrow morning.
Unfortunately, because I am a new user I can't attach links to the photos of the signs

Redx

you can however reply with dead links to the pictures hosted on a hosting site like tinypic or photobucket

Nileonfire

Thanks for the tip!
http:// i63.tinypic. com/efhwes.jpg
http:// tinypic. com/r/esud1k/9
Those are the photos of the signs (remove spaces)

Crabman

Nileonfire wrote: »

Thanks for the tip!
http:// i63.tinypic. com/efhwes.jpg
http:// tinypic. com/r/esud1k/9
Those are the photos of the signs (remove spaces)

Clickable links

http://i63.tinypic.com/efhwes.jpg
http://i64.tinypic.com/esud1k.jpg

peter_the_piper

By the time you have read all the fine print you would have been done for overstaying.

salmosalaris

From the signage
1. No contract for parking is offered if you are not a customer therefore how possibly can they sue for breach of contract ?
2. They clearly advertise they operate for and on behalf of the landowner . This precludes them bringing an action in their name .
3. If anything you were a trespasser for which only the landowner may sue ( quote the Beavis SC judgment ) for the value of your stay

The SC made great reference to the signage in Beavis , you need to make plain the clear difference in your case

I know judges won't go for this but we shouldn't just bow down to this rollux because they are being rollercoasted , bamboozled and misled

Nileonfire

Right so I should use the signs wording to my advantage then? Sorry if that's wrong, I'm a complete novice when it comes to this, all I know they're acting unfairly!

Cygnus_Alpha

Another point you can look into is the placement of the signs.

Was there a sign at the entrance prominent enough that you could have read it while driving in? Could you have legitimately walked from where you parked to a shop or elsewhere without seeing any signs. Was it dark?

Basically if you didn't see the signs then no contract with PE has been entered into.

I won my court case against PE on signage.