Turning the tables on ParkingEye and ZZPS

gilesbennett2022

Long time lurker, first time poster, and unusual - it seems - in that I'm not posting this to ask for help, but to provide insight into how I'm turning the tables on ParkingEye and ZZPS, in the hopes that it may amuse, inspire or otherwise cheer someone up. So. Make a coffee and sit back and enjoy.

Back in March 2020, with lockdown looming, The Wife (TM) went for a haircut. Parked in the carpark at the back, paid for two hours. Before those two hours were up, realised her parking would run out (I don't understand, personally, how a haircut can take three hours, but that's irrelevant) so popped out and paid for another hour. Left the car park about 5 minutes after the second ticket expired.

There then followed a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) from ParkingEye. She'd kept the tickets in the car, so I popped out to get them. Turned out that for some reason the machine had only registered the second part of her numberplate on the first ticket (the second ticket was fine). On a later visit to the car park I checked and there was a "clear" button near to the "space" button which I think she'd probably pressed after putting in the first part, but not looked up before pressing the big green button to issue the ticket. Anyway - no point crying over spilt milk.

The PCN was for an overstay, though. Quick bit of Googling, ParkingEye are members of BPA, which leads me to the BPA guidelines, which say a ten minute grace period should be allowed at the end of the parking session - it wasn't allowed, though, as she left within five minutes of the expiry of the session.

So, I reply to the PCN saying all this. Sure enough get an "appeal denied" email saying that the first parking session hadn't been paid for (note that that's not the same as an overstay).

Back to the BPA guidelines, which say that a minor keying error (one or more characters wrong / missing) should be picked up and written off before the PCN is issued, and a major keying error (entire numberplate wrong) should be a £20 charge at most. No clarification, but at best this is a minor keying error, at worst a major one - either way, not the huge fee that PE are trying to impose.

So I reply to them saying that too. Sure enough, get an "appeal denied" email, at which point I tell her to ignore any of the subsequent letters that no doubt will show up. And sure enough, they do - from debt collectors, PE themselves, and so on. I lost count of how many.

Fast forward to early April 2022, and yet another one drops onto the doorstep. At this point, I've had enough. So I gird up my loins - they take a lot of girding at my age - and write to both ZZPS (from whom the letter was received) and PE (with a copy of the letter to ZZPS). To ZZPS I repeat the facts, tell them that there is no debt until a court says so, no matter how many quasi-legalistic letters full of nonsensical threats they wish to write, and that any more letters from them will constitute harassment, my position in respect of which is reserved. To PE I repeat the facts, and tell them that if I get any other letter from them, or ZZPS, that is not a letter before action, I will sue them.

Sure enough, a week later another brace of letters. A 14 day notice from ZZPS, and an "appeal denied" from PE.

So. PE have just received, from me, a letter before action. Either they undertake to never write to us again in respect of this issue, or we will sue them for (a) £200 - 5 hours at £40/hour, and (b) an order from the court that they never write to us again in respect of this issue. They have been given 28 days to reply, and if it's of interest, I will continue. 

I am quite prepared to take them to court - it seems to be either that or put up with regular letters for the next 4 years. If there's interest, I'll happily update this thread with developments along the way.

Coupon-mad

Very good!  I think someone who'd like to read this is our own similar litigator, @zhonguonuren

Umkomaas

If there are debt collectors involved in a ParkingEye case, PE have all but given up on collecting. While PE can be quite litigious, we have yet to see any case they've farmed out to a DCA come back to them with court proceedings following - to the point we believe that where a DCA is involved, no court case will ensue. 

But good on you for poking them both in the eye with a sharp stick.  Keep us posted.  👍

Half_way

The £40/hour is as far as I know far too high.
I think the cap is up to £19/hour with the emphasis on up to

patient_dream

Umkomaas said:

If there are debt collectors involved in a ParkingEye case, PE have all but given up on collecting. While PE can be quite litigious, we have yet to see any case they've farmed out to a DCA come back to them with court proceedings following - to the point we believe that where a DCA is involved, no court case will ensue. 

But good on you for poking them both in the eye with a sharp stick.  Keep us posted.  👍

PE using a company like ZZPS who add the fakes ....... they must be desperate

useremoved

Why the limit on hourly rate im not going to sound like I earn a lot but my hourly is more than 40 an hour if I’m working and surely any of my time lost to having to deal with this is time I can charge them for 

or do I take twice as long to write the letters at half the rate

Very interested in this ? Is it actually viable 

KeithP

useremoved said:

Why the limit on hourly rate im not going to sound like I earn a lot but my hourly is more than 40 an hour if I’m working and surely any of my time lost to having to deal with this is time I can charge them for 

or do I take twice as long to write the letters at half the rate

Very interested in this ? Is it actually viable 

That is nothing to do with parking.

If you want to explore why the courts systems are what they are, there are probably far better places to do that. Legalbeagles might be one such forum.

zhonguonuren

Have only just seen this when replying to a private message. 

Hi OP.  The only thing I would say is that you sound far too upbeat!  I would write an email saying enough is enough and this is harassment and is causing distress and anxiety (if you are claiming under GDPR).  Also ask where your hard copy data is stored - they hate that! 

The experts will know about any implications of the incorrect keying in issue. 

Very interested in how you get on.  All the best Zhong

bargepole

gilesbennett2022 said:

So. PE have just received, from me, a letter before action. Either they undertake to never write to us again in respect of this issue, or we will sue them for (a) £200 - 5 hours at £40/hour, and (b) an order from the court that they never write to us again in respect of this issue. They have been given 28 days to reply, and if it's of interest, I will continue. 

I am quite prepared to take them to court - it seems to be either that or put up with regular letters for the next 4 years. If there's interest, I'll happily update this thread with developments along the way.

Sorry to say that I don't see any valid cause of action here that a Judge would find in your favour on. Nor is there any legal basis for your £40 per hour.

As for a Court Order that they 'never write to you again', that is likely to fly like a concrete glider.

zhonguonuren

I go for £300 plus the court fee back - never an hourly rate.  

They can write to me after as often as they like - but they will get another claim 🤣 

zhonguonuren

£500 if it’s really serious like bailiffs are coming to the door (council for my daughter - all incorrect and breach of GDPR).  It was embarrassing and upsetting - no word of a lie. I asked for £1,000, Hammersmith & Fulham Council said £500 plus costs was ‘usual’ ?! We settled so my daughter didn’t have to go to court.