Updated Success Settled, Myself Taking Parking Eye POPLA or Parking Site owner to court

Redx

If it's closed , you wouldn't know and cannot pay so frustration of contract favouring the consumer under the CRA 2015

So let's assume it's pay by phone ( remembering that not everyone will have a phone , it's still frustration of contract due to no means to pay at the time

Nobody mentioned paying £100 by phone , nothing to do with the parking contract on the day , nobody phones up the number on the sign to pay £100 , they do so to pay £15 for a private vehicle ( others pay more ) 

So if you phone the number on the sign to pay £15 by card over the phone , Who are you actually paying , was the point of my reply , is it WB , or Parking Eye , or a third party go between ?

But if they had been open and you paid £15 at the till , do the tills pay WB ? Or PE ? , Or a third party go between ?

In other words , like when you pay a lottery ticket , through a terminal , because the person on the till definitely asks for your VRM !!

It's knowing who you are actually contracting with that's important here 

The £100 payment by phone , card , cheque or transfer etc is most definitely to Parking Eye and not to WB

WB signs say to deal with PE , so yes they may argue that in their defence , I agree

As for the £185 , if parking Eye took you to court via MCOL for not paying the £100 after losing at MCOL , they would claim a total of £185 under the new MCOL charges , previously it was £175

Terry1931

KeithP said:

Terry1931 said:

To progress here we must discuss what would happen if Welcome Break were named on the MCOL but they denied being responsible and referring the claim be addressed to Parking Eye.

If you name WB as the Defendant, then you will need to prove that the were responsible for... err... whatever it is you are accusing them of.

All WB have to do is say to you - prove it.

If WB do demonstrate that, then your Claim ends there.

WB does not have to suggest that PE are a more appropriate Defendant.

Parking Eye has provided the evidence already.

The Parking Eyes own evidence as a site plan and pictures  showed there were no payment machines despite being listed as a means of payment in the terms and conditions on entry , there was no phone number on the pictures of the signage to call despite being in the terms and conditions on entry.

As the parking fee was due after the free period at the appropriate amount and  before finally leaving the site, you would only discover the lack of payment on going to pay. There was no payment before parking duration only before leaving.

The only means of payment was inside the services and nobody had a clue.

Redx

In that case , I would think all those are issues for Parking Eye and not WB , contractor issues farmed out to the contractor by WB

I am sure that Sir Nicholas Bowen QC maybe should have used it in his case , if it's a goer , Shame he didn't , or he considered it and decided against it because his Defence of a Parking Eye court claim cost them dear in the end !!

Redx

This is a typical WB sign by parking eye , below the big sign but attached to one of the 2 uprights , it definitely states pay by phone or app , with a phone number ( this is one at pear tree a couple of years ago ) , paybyphone is definitely a third party phone number and app , like I mentioned earlier

It does mention PDT machines , plus Starbucks ! For onsite payments , nothing about paying WB themselves , I suspect it's all using paybyphone as a third party

Redx

Typical combination at an MSA exit showing both signs together , but when it was cheaper !!

Terry1931

I have written to both Welcmoe Break and Parking Eye to confirm to which party is responsible for the Contract, and to which Party do I address my Court Claim for the frustration of such contract and recover the £85.

Welcome break refused to comment and referred my dispute to Parking Eye and Parking Eye said the matter is Closed as the APPEAL WAS REJECTED BY POPLA

Neither party are prepared to address that I wish to move forward from the original process and Start a new and separate Claim against the other Contract Party.

The signage says the land is Private and for use by Welcome BREAK CUSTOMERS ONLY, Therefore Parking Eye are just a management company acting as agents and enforcers of the Terms and Conditions of use of the land and set or agreed to by the landowners.

The landowners may reasonably be assumed to be Welcome Break Holdings

My intention is to claim against Welcome break holdings as that is the reasonable conclusion, if this is incorrect I will sight that both Welcome Break and Parking Eye not only frustrated the original Contract entered into to Park but they would not give a fair response to my question concerning the legal identity of the party in that contract. I am entitled to know this information from Welcome Break regardless. 

Redx

Checking the land registry would tell you who the landowner is , but I believe that it's National Highways , and they lease the site for a peppercorn rent ( I did mention that I believed that it was owned by the government , and still do )

I do not believe that you have any entitlement to know the contract details from any MSA operator or private parking company , if you think otherwise , cite the law that says so

Just be sure of your facts , because you have to prove your case in order to win in court and Parking Eye and WB are big companies , David Vs Goliath

Check the Popla appeal evidence pack for any contract or redacted contract , signs , paperwork etc , you will need this evidence in court , plus get pictures of the signs in place at the incident location too

I hope you prevail , but I have my doubts

Terry1931

Redx said:

Checking the land registry would tell you who the landowner is , but I believe that it's National Highways , and they lease the site for a peppercorn rent ( I did mention that I believed that it was owned by the government , and still do )

I do not believe that you have any entitlement to know the contract details from any MSA operator or private parking company , if you think otherwise , cite the law that says so

Just be sure of your facts , because you have to prove your case in order to win in court and Parking Eye and WB are big companies , David Vs Goliath

Check the Popla appeal evidence pack for any contract or redacted contract , signs , paperwork etc , you will need this evidence in court , plus get pictures of the signs in place at the incident location too

I hope you prevail , but I have my doubts

The evidence given by Parking eye to Popla is all I need, as evidence, as this site plan and pictures they provide shows the misleading contract terms. On entry to the site it says payment may be made by phone, by payment machine and inside the services.  The site plan shows there are no payment machines and no phone number to call.

This was Pointed out to Popla during the appeal but they refused to regard it as statig this being additional to the original appeal to Parking Eye. So therefore I will start again in another Court, a much less of a Kangaroo Court

Terry1931

UPDATE

I have now paid the parking charge notice, I have written to Parking Eye and  BPA stating that this payment is without prejudice to my future actions. There is no further action that Parking Eye can take against me now or at any unknown future date. 


Now to turn the tables on Parking Eye. 

I am now completing the MCOL to recover the £85 demanded by Parking Eye that was over and above what the terms and conditions dictated. This claim is on the grounds that Parking Eye frustrated the terms and conditions by not having payment machines and a phone number to call. 

Terry1931

*Update*

Parking Eye have now asked to settle this matter by agreeing to repay me the sum claimed.