Will they go to court or not?

rizla01

Bit of a sticky one here. Sorry its so long and drawn out.


Daughter left parking area over alloted 2hr time because she drove her car to the takeaway (located within the parking area) and had to wait to be served. She didn't realise that counted. (Me neither tbh)

So far, on my instruction she has not responded to any letters from PE except the one from small claims court which also asked for reasons that she contests the charge. (initially £60 if paid within...etc then went up to £120 and then threats of Court Costs Etc to be added could increase this to £250 ish) and after the letter was returned to the court she had a FINAL letter from PE offering her the opportunity of just paying £60 again 'Based on further information that we have received' and that was followed by the self same letter two weeks later.
Not stating what the 'Further Information ' is. I.e. What, that the time clock was wrong? Wrong Car? What?

Two days ago she received a 'Proposed Allocation to the small claims fast track service so I need to deal with this rather urgently.

I understand that I cannot appear in court on her behalf without her being present which is not going to happen.

Just wondered - How likely are they to pursue this.

Any advice very gratefully received.

Quentin

If she hasn't admitted already to being the driver then you need to edit your post to remove details of who was driving

The ppcs monitor this forum and can use your posts against you

(Your instructions to her to ignore this was bad. Maybe you have some responsibility for her ending up in Court!!)

Coupon-mad

Daughter left parking area 14 mins over alloted 2hr time because she drove her car to the KFC (located within the parking area) and had to wait to be served. She didn't realise that counted. (Me neither tbh)

It doesn't count. Quite apart from the BPA CoP on Grace Periods which covers her time to drive in and then leave at the end, moving the car within the site makes it TWO 'periods of parking'. That - plus the grace periods rule - makes it seem likely PE won't proceed to a hearing with this one.

This wobble from them also makes me think they are keen to discontinue:

after the letter was returned to the court she had a FINAL letter from PE offering her the opportunity of just paying £60 again 'Based on further information that we have received' and that was followed by the self same letter two weeks later.

Two days ago she received a 'Proposed Allocation to the small claims fast track service which was dated 29th November, so I need to deal with this rather urgently.

OK that's easy to do. Follow what bargepole says about DQ stage in the link in the NEWBIES thread about what to do when, and how. If she will not appear on court you could always tick ''yes'' to Mediation and she could do a phone mediation and offer say £30, if PE are prepared to settle at £60. Offer half.

Or, proceed by ticking NO to Mediation (which is our usual advice, because these cases are winnable at hearings) and see if I am right that they seem to want to cancel this one. If they don't discontinue a week or so before the hearing, you/she could choose to settle and pay it the day before any hearing in 2018, if push comes to shove.

However, for just 14 minutes over total stay, in a car park that involved the car being moved (two parking events) and considering the BPA CoP on Grace Periods, I honestly think she/you should front this one out and continue to defend.

I would call their bluff because IMHO they've already handed her a big clue with the letter they sent twice, begging for £60.

rizla01

Thank you CM. That sound like very sound advice.:beer:

I don't know if it makes a difference but the parking area serves just one store and a takeaway and both the Companies rent the land from the land owner who has instructed PE.
Perhaps PE are the land owner too.

Redx

from my knowledge on these matters PE do not "own" any parking land

they are in the business of parking control on behalf of others , which they either pay for like in the BEAVIS case or they contract with like with asda and others

you have made far too many assumptions that have got you here, poor legal advice to your relative being one of them , dont make any more assumptions

you can pay the Land Registry about £3 to find out landowner details

could be a pension fund , or British Land , or some other speculative body or investor

KFC and MATALAN tend to rent from an MA so an MA possibly contracted with PE on behalf of the landowner

this could all have been resolved ages ago with a landowner complaint and a POPLA appeal, so to have let it get this far is abominable and VERY poor advice

but for now all that can be done is move forward with it in the manner described above, minus assumptions

Coupon-mad

I concur. ParkingEye don't own any car parks that I know of, it's just not what they do. They just hoover up money from ordinary people, without having any customers, nor showing any customer service ethic, nor having any ownership of land.

It really should not be legal, IMHO; regulars here would say this is not a business model that anyone should support.

But we are stuck with it in this broken Country, where money talks, and the Supreme Court actually thought that (Capita-owned, sloshing with money from drivers) ParkingEye could be supported in issuing enormous charges to people. Never mind the lack of any pre-estimate of loss and lack of any land ownership. Forget all that (common sense and trite law until 2015).

Since the Beavis case, it's fine (literally) for PE to fine people, according to the highest Judges in England - sigh...

Firms like this just infest car parks that are owned by other companies and operate a practice akin to a protection racket, basically a parasite occupation, threatening the customers of the true owners. Why on earth so many retailers think this is a good plan of action, letting their customers get sued by such pariahs/ex clampers, is beyond me.

rizla01

CM.
One thing that bothers me is this.
Are some of these 'fines' issued for USE of the parking area rather than for actual parking or is that not usual?
I haven't been to see for myself but if so, would that negate the Double Parking rule?

Quentin

They are "contractual charges" they say you agreed to by using the car parks covered by the " contract" you enter into by using the car park

Redx

Parking Eye do not monitor "parking" , they monitor time on site , totally different

I could go to my local retail park and as long as I do not stay over 4 hours I can "park" in a dozen places to go in twenty shops , or I could drive round and round for 4 hours and then leave, never parking once

this is about making money out of unwary victims, not "parking"

rizla01

Redx wrote: »

Parking Eye do not monitor "parking" , they monitor time on site , totally different

I could go to my local retail park and as long as I do not stay over 4 hours I can "park" in a dozen places to go in twenty shops , or I could drive round and round for 4 hours and then leave, never parking once

this is about making money out of unwary victims, not "parking"

So where Coupon Mad says

It doesn't count. Quite apart from the BPA CoP on Grace Periods which covers her time to drive in and then leave at the end, moving the car within the site makes it TWO 'periods of parking'. That - plus the grace periods rule - makes it seem likely PE won't proceed to a hearing with this one.

Are you saying that he/she is wrong?

Coupon-mad

I am a 'she'.

We are both right!

ParkingEye have signs talking about 'total stay'. They make the rules up, because they can. No-one stops them.

But the POFA 2012 talks about parking events and says that a PCN can only be issued to a keeper for a 'single period of parking'. So clearly the intention of Parliament is, that liability for a parking charge relates to a single parking event.

There are also Grace Periods to factor in, and the BPA CoP sets those out (two periods, one for arriving, finding a space, and observing the signs and deciding whether to stay, and the other at least ten minutes merely to leave).

All explained here:

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/News/good-car-parking-practice-includes-grace-periods

So, if your Daughter's total stay was just 14 minutes (all told) over the 2 hours parking allowed, even if she hadn't moved the car and re-parked, the Grace periods cover her already, and PE no doubt realise this, and are chancing their arm. 5 minutes on arrival plus the mandatory ten after expiry of allowed parking time = 15 minutes non-parking activity, perfectly OK.

I expect that's why PE want to backtrack/squeeze £60 out of her, because they are on a sticky wicket already.

Now, on top of that grace periods argument, she can also argue two more things:

- that the car was moved within the site, so there were two parking events (then she points to the POFA - even if she's blabbed about who was driving, IMHO she can point to the will of Parliament about PCNs relating only to single parking events, and also nothing is there about made-up 'total stays'!)

- that circumspect, average drivers would perfectly reasonably take the ambiguous terms to mean that they can in fact park for a total of two hours, which she did not exceed. Any reference on the signs to 'total stay' is no doubt contradicted elsewhere by mention of 'parking' (check, it usually is, maybe instore/on the window or on the retailer's website?) and as such the terms are ambiguous as well as disingenuous.

She didn't contravene 2 hours total parking, and did not accept any contract to pay £100.

I am sure PE are looking to discontinue this one. It is winnable on Grace Periods alone, but throw in the 'moved car' and you have even more to say at any hearing (and I don't think PE want this to go in front of any Judge).

I would write emails in your DD's name to PE, telling it like it is an encouraging them to discontinue, and that she declines to pay them a penny for non-parking activity covered by Grace Periods, and clearly they have no cause of action:

enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk

Expect to be fobbed off. DO NOT WRITE AS YOU, WRITE AS THE DEFENDANT.

Keep at them, reply EVERY time as her, telling them they have no cause of action and reiterating the Grace periods and the moved car. Email tennis can win this, no hearing. I reckon they could cancel by the New Year if you/she keep on at them.