Highview Parking Ltd - SCS Law Letter Received Today

hitman126

Ralph-y wrote: »

hitman126 .... have you complained to the gym yet ?

Ralph:cool:

Hi Ralph, yes I did and the were absolutely unhelpful.

Herzlos

hitman126 wrote: »

Hi Ralph, yes I did and the were absolutely unhelpful.

Have you found a new gym, then?

nosferatu1001

When you postted this up on tripadvisor / facebook / twitter etc, did that get any more help?
Pointing out you wont return is an idea.

hitman126

Herzlos wrote: »

Have you found a new gym, then?

Lol, not yet.

hitman126

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

When you postted this up on tripadvisor / facebook / twitter etc, did that get any more help?
Pointing out you wont return is an idea.

Not posted anything yet but definitely intend to do so, including making a formal complaint to the Head Office about the behaviour and attitude of the branch representative who was so rude and even had the temerity to tell me to pay the fine.

Herzlos

hitman126 wrote: »

Lol, not yet.

You should at least make a bit of noise about doing so - quite often the gyms are able to get the charges cancelled - especially if they own the car park or contracted Highview. It sounds like you were fobbed off by the muppet on the front desk - go speak to the manager (and take some application forms for competing gyms with you).

Umkomaas

If your gym is Xercise for Less, they seem to have quite a contempt for their customers when faced with parking charges - little or no help! Cases for them crop up here quite often.

hitman126

Well, well, well.......this case developed further when a few days ago I received the below email, on the back of the letter I wrote to DPR in response to their demand letter. Would be grateful for any helpful feedback on how to treat this. I have truncated and/or stripped out bits of it to ensure anonymity.


Start of Email

Thank you for your email regarding the above Parking Charge Notices (PCNs). The time to challenge these charges has now expired and therefore access to the Independent Appeals Service (if applicable) is no longer available.

However, in order to resolve this matter, I will offer the following comments as to why these PCNs were correctly issued and are still payable.

My findings
The sites in question are subject to terms and conditions, which are stated on signs throughout the area. Those signs state that there is a time limit at the site.

On the dates in question the vehicle was parked for longer than the time stated and a PCN was correctly and legitimately issued as a result.Please be advised, there are currently xxx outstanding Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) under the vehicle registration.

The claim in question is based in contract law. When you parked your vehicle on the site in question, you contractually agreed to abide by the terms and conditions attached to that site. As stated, these terms and conditions are adequately displayed on signage at the site. If you did not wish to abide by
these terms and conditions, you were under no obligation to park on the property in question.

I draw your attention to the decision made by the Supreme Court in ParkingEye vs Beavis [2015]. The Supreme Court ruled that the charge appealed did not contravene the penalty rule or the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and was therefore enforceable.

The charge in that case was ruled not to be a penalty as both ParkingEye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in charging motorists who contravene parking restrictions, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient management
of parking. The interest of ParkingEye was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin. Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having regard to the practices around the United Kingdom and taking into account the use of the
particular car park and the clear wording of the signs.

Please see this link for a summary of the Judgment:

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0280-press-summary.pdf

The signage on site is sufficient and is in line with the guidelines laid down by the British Parking Association (BPA).

The majority of motorists who park at the site do so without receiving a PCN. This is undoubtedly due to the fact that they are aware of the terms and conditions of the site. If, as you claim, the signage was inadequate, the terms and conditions of the site would be unknown to the majority of drivers and many more PCNs would be issued here.

If you refer to the British Parking Association’s code of practice, you will discover that the sum in question is within what this body deems reasonable.

I also draw your attention to the decision made by the Supreme Court in ParkingEye vs Beavis [2015]. The Supreme Court ruled that the charge appealed did not contravene the penalty rule or the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and was therefore enforceable.

The charge in that case was ruled not to be a penalty as both ParkingEye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in charging motorists who contravene parking restrictions, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient management
of parking. The interest of ParkingEye was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin. Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having regard to the practices around the United Kingdom and taking into account the use of the particular car park and the clear wording of the signs.

Please see this link for a summary of the Judgment:

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0280-press-summary.pdf

I must also stress that simply sending in standard template responses, most likely obtained from the internet, will not resolve the matter. In addition, I would recommend that professional legal advice be sought on this matter as an alternative.

What you need to do now
Please ensure that £xxxx.xx is paid by xx/01/2017. Payment can be made online or by phone.

End of Email

PS: By the way, the parking company involved in this case have now been replaced at the car park in question by a new parking company.

Quentin

Hope you will not engage further with drp!


See:. https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5035663

Umkomaas

Well, well, well.......

Really?

A very standard DRP template. Do a Google search on ‘DRP My Findings’. Ignore it.

PS: By the way, the parking company involved in this case have now been replaced at the car park in question by a new parking company.

SSDD! When will these landowners learn?