PARKING EYE - TAKING ME TO COURT - HOTEL OVERNIGHT GUEST

D_P_Dance

Consider writing a bad review of the hotel on Facebook, TripAdvisor, Trivago, booking.com and hotels.com.  

Ralph-y

"Escalate to senior management at the hotel and, if that doesn't work get it in writing from the IC Hotel Group (I assume it is them, it normally is) that they have asked for it to be cancelled so that it can be put before the judge. "

as above get this evidence ......

tell said people that you are going to leave full and honest review on social media , and draw them into any court proceedings , and you are taking advice re a counter claim

Ralph

Johnersh

D_P_Dance said:

The sign *could* easily state that guests must register their vehicle each time they arrive or depart. It presumably does not.

But would that be a fair (or reasonable) term in a consumer contract?

That doesn't really matter, truth be told, but it simply makes the point that they're stuck with the current wording and it's actually pretty clear.

Half_way

If the original poster had given the vehicles reg number to the hotel, and as a result the hotel failed to correctly porcess the data then:

 A : the hotel is at fault

B: There could be a GDPR breach if the hotels agents, the parking company then go on to access/process the original posters personal data, as the vehicle was legitimately  on the site then the hotel, or its agents had any legitimate reason to access, store and process personal data in regards to raising a parking charge notice.

Hiding behind a technological error, or a process error /malfunction is no excuse.

the Hotel is jointly and severally liable for the actions of its agents, and with  the (relatively) new GDPR legislation introduces a new layer of personal liability in effect the person who signed off on allowing parking eye to operate in the hotel grounds could be personally liable for any breaches by the hotels. agents.

 Personal liability means that for example if John smithy signed the document for the hotel, John Smith would be personally charged.

Time and time again we see people hit with the actions of parking companies, and the route of this problem lies with the landowners ( and the DVLA) The big corporates should have process and systems in place ( ie legal departments) that should check before anything is signed upto , and if things go wrong due to negligence  ie allowing an un regulated parking company ( neither the BPA ltd, or the IPC are regulatory authorities) then we need to see some form of action being taken against the individuals who sign off on allowing PPCs to operate, or are responsible for them

 The only exception to the go for the landowner ruling would be if its a small independent business, or a community facility ( such as a village hall/) in which case they can be victims of the PPCs as well ( although a letter to the relevant committee may scare them into action )

BrownTrout

Definately a review on Trip advisor

Coupon-mad

Have you got a N1 court claim?

If not, if you only have a LBCCC from P/Eye, now is the time to read what the NEWBIES thread post #2 tells you about ParkingEye at LBCCC stage.

Their enforcement team (the litigation lot) email is given there, and you MUST go through it all again because they are not the same people who handled your appeal.  Think of this as a final chance to appeal, which is what the NEWBIES thread tells you.  I've seen off loads fo LBCCC stage ParkingEye cases for poeple over the years.  No claims happened, all were cancelled at LBCCC stage.

Send the enforcement team your proof that the Hotel have emailed saying they want the PCN cancelled and that this was an authorised wedding guest who was allowed to park for the 'duration of their stay' which was over 24 hours.  Point out that the term 'duration of stay' to a Hotel Guest can only reasonably be interpreted that they are exempt for their whole 'stay' as a guest, and cannot be held (as POPLA wrongly did) to have entered into separate contracts every time they pass and repass due to transporting bridesmaids!

Pressure the Hotel Management AGAIN - the CEO of the national chain - and tell them that P/Eye can and do cancel cases after POPLA has made a decision, but only if their clients are robust and insist.  You are asking the Hotel to contact ParkingEye again but stand firm, be robust with their agent instead of letting the tail wag the dog. 

At the moment they are taking P/Eye's word for it that aPCN cannot b cancelled after POPLA (it can...) and the result is they are letting a paying member of a wedding party be sued just because the Hotel can't rein in their own contractors.  Of course they can cancel it.  Thy just need to stay on the phone and insist and tell ParkingEye that it is damaging the Hotel's faith in the whole contract...

If you get a court claim form despite trying REALLY hard with the above first, there is already a suitable defence example to adapt, about Parking Eye and entering your vehicle number into a keypad.   Already written (in the NEWBEIES thread post #2) and ready to go when you need it, after suitable editing of facts of course.

You'll win - or P/Eye wil discontinue - due to having ambiguous terms and no 'legitimate interest' to support any cause of action.

Fruitcake

"Overnight guests" and the word "stay" imply the whole overnight stay, not the time the vehicle stayed before leaving and returning within the overnight stay period. 
I'm sure the man on the Clapham omnibus would interpret the Ts and Cs this way, not the way that the scammers and PoPLA interpreted it.

If the hotel receptionist entered the guest's VRM, then the responsibility for this lies jointly with that person and PE. 
If there is a requirement to ridiculously re-enter a VRM every time a vehicle leaves and returns within the overnight stay period, it must be on the signs, and must be conveyed by the hotel staff at check in.

The overnight stay begins when the guest's vehicle arrives, not when the VRM is entered.

DoaM

Is the OP going to return?

Fruitcake

DoaM said:

Is the OP going to return?

According to their profile, they were last on MSE on the 21st of May, yet they started this thread two days later. Methinks the MSE computer gremloids are at work again.

Ralph-y

probably driving up and down the country under new/old lockdown rules

Ralphy gets coat .............

Ralph