Help with Wright Hassall response

Robspur

Please could someone provide feedback on my proposed response to Wright Hassall regarding a ticket issued in January 2015 at a Parking Eye sight?

I genuinely did not see the signs, I am not from the area, the car park was empty and I spent money in the store. I was in the car park for a total of 51 minutes, it would have cost me £1 which of course I would have paid if I had known.

Below was my response to POPLA, my case was on hold until yesterday, I now have two days in which to add any further evidence.

Any help greatly appreciated.

I appeal this fine on the following basis.

1) In sufficient signage
2) Unlawful Penalty charge
3) The charge is a penalty and not a genuine / accurate pre-estimate of loss
4) Receipt from purchase made with the Land owner

Details below

1.. Having never visited the area before 30th January was my first visit to Walsall, I attended a meeting with a supplier, after my meeting on my way home I noticed the ASDA sign and thought I would purchase a sandwich. I drove into the car park, there was no barrier and no pay and display sign. After purchasing a sandwich from ASDA I visited Smyths Toys and purchased a bike for my son (receipt attached). The car park was half empty, there were no tickets in car windscreens and I did not see a single pay point or pay and display sign. Had I have done so, I would have paid the £1 parking fee, after all I spent almost £50 in two shops owned by the land owner.

2. Without any demonstrable loss or damage, it is clear that this 'charge' is an attempt to dress up an unlawful penalty to impersonate a parking ticket. This is similar to the decisions in several County Court cases such as Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008) OB Services v Thurlow (review, February 2011), Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011) and UKCPS v Murphy (April 2012).

3. The Parking Charge Notice records the duration of stay at 51 minutes, whilst the tariff set by the operator for a 1 hour stay is just £1. You are asking for a charge of £85. This far exceeds the cost to the landowner for the time my car was present within the boundary of the car park. The charge cannot be construed as anything but a punitive penalty. Please provide a full breakdown of costs incurred by Parking Eye. The amount of the “penalty” imposed is completely disproportionate to any alleged “loss” by Parking Eye. It is, therefore, punitive and contravenes the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997.

In Parking Eye v Smith, Manchester County Court December 2011, the judge decided that the only amount the Operator could lawfully claim was the amount that the driver should have paid into the machine. Anything else was deemed a penalty.

4. Attached is a receipt from Smyths Toys for purchases made during my visit.

I propose I pay the £1 for 51 minutes of parking, or given the amount spent in the land owners stores nothing at all. I will take this appeal to POPLA if unsuccessful and if needs be to Court.

Orford

Parking Prankster has written about this:
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/wright-hassall-begin-to-hear-stayed.html

Ralph-y

all so have a read through this thread ........

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5445602

Ralph:cool:

Coupon-mad

Point #3 needs dropping or a re-hash as per Beavis.

This is far too old to quote now at all:

In Parking Eye v Smith, Manchester County Court December 2011, the judge decided that the only amount the Operator could lawfully claim was the amount that the driver should have paid into the machine. Anything else was deemed a penalty.

Coupon-mad

Here are a couple of relevant threads to crib from because you need MORE than the above:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5446138

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5445602

HTH

The_Deep

In siding with this dishonest company, WH are acting at the very limits of the law, some might say that they are bringing their profession into disrepute.

If you feel thusly, you should copy their letter to the SRA,

https://www.sra.org.uk/home/home.page

along with a strong letter of complaint, especially if they made mention of a "landmark judgement" in the Supreme Court. The Beavis case is very different from yours.


If you post up the WH letter we will have a look at it and see if they have crossed the line, they often do.