Parking Eye lose case - have to pay parking!
Discussion
98elise said:
This. I have no issue with paying for over staying etc. the issue is that the charges are not in any way reflective of the lost revenue or costs. They are fines, and a good revenue stream.
The DBS the boss of the parking company that is above our office would agree with you, as would his member ship at Wentworth 
The irony being the staff at his place can't park for toffee and he can't control his own car park. Land owners and users need a simple and cost effective method to combat the selfish scumbags.
I have people parking in my businesses spaces. There is nothing I can currently effectively do save for trying to get their details from DVLA and then applying to the Court for an injunction. My solicitor advises I am unlikely to be awarded costs for that.
I have left polite notes on their cars, but they continue. My colleague even caught one in person and asked them not to, they said okay then walked away from their car leaving it there, and they were back the next day!
I have people parking in my businesses spaces. There is nothing I can currently effectively do save for trying to get their details from DVLA and then applying to the Court for an injunction. My solicitor advises I am unlikely to be awarded costs for that.
I have left polite notes on their cars, but they continue. My colleague even caught one in person and asked them not to, they said okay then walked away from their car leaving it there, and they were back the next day!
10 Pence Short said:
Zeeky said:
It appears to me self-evident that these charges are charges for parking and not for breach of contract.
I'm not so sure on that. Do PPCs charge VAT on their payment demands? My understanding is that they prefer to consider them liquidated damages, which do not attract VAT.A penalty is intended to deter non-compliance. Compliance being of benefit of the other party. Where is the benefit in such a deterrence to the parking company?
I agree on the primary purpose for the PPC, although I don't think LD are the correct vehicle for the purpose and think for clarity it would be better to have either charges for parking or a statutory system.
Also bear in mind that for the land owner, the true purpose is proper control of their parking facilities, which is a perfectly valid requirement.
Also bear in mind that for the land owner, the true purpose is proper control of their parking facilities, which is a perfectly valid requirement.
Booths supermarket in Windermere is built in the old railway station, but access is from the side opposite the new station and it's car park.
To get from Booths car park to the station, involves either a long walk around, or a short cut through Booths store - there is an exit into the station yard while they are open.
Parking Eye have the task of administering the free car park - free for two hours, no return within 1 hour.
There have been numerous instances of shoppers at Booths being caught out because after shopping, they have elected to have lunch in Booths cafe and tea rooms, and their total stay has exceeded two hours.
Lunch or afternoon tea there is not cheap, so we are talking of a dining experience rather than a quick bite to eat - especially since there is free WiFi!
Lakeland - the kitchenware shop have their HQ and shop on the other side of the tracks from Booth car park.
THEIR car park is accessed via the Station car park - but has NO enforcement or limits on how long you can park.
They have NO problems with lack of spaces, or people using their car park to avoid the station car park charges, AND the car park is left open 24 hours a day.
Needless to say, Booths and Parking Eye are becoming increasingly unpopular as more and more customers fall victim to the ANPR base automated enforcement.
The only loss Booths suffer is from customers who now go elsewhere after being penalised for using them.
Meanwhile, the Morrisons Local store in town has thrown Parking Eye out of their car park, and now no longer enforce their 45 minute waiting condition!
To get from Booths car park to the station, involves either a long walk around, or a short cut through Booths store - there is an exit into the station yard while they are open.
Parking Eye have the task of administering the free car park - free for two hours, no return within 1 hour.
There have been numerous instances of shoppers at Booths being caught out because after shopping, they have elected to have lunch in Booths cafe and tea rooms, and their total stay has exceeded two hours.
Lunch or afternoon tea there is not cheap, so we are talking of a dining experience rather than a quick bite to eat - especially since there is free WiFi!
Lakeland - the kitchenware shop have their HQ and shop on the other side of the tracks from Booth car park.
THEIR car park is accessed via the Station car park - but has NO enforcement or limits on how long you can park.
They have NO problems with lack of spaces, or people using their car park to avoid the station car park charges, AND the car park is left open 24 hours a day.
Needless to say, Booths and Parking Eye are becoming increasingly unpopular as more and more customers fall victim to the ANPR base automated enforcement.
The only loss Booths suffer is from customers who now go elsewhere after being penalised for using them.
Meanwhile, the Morrisons Local store in town has thrown Parking Eye out of their car park, and now no longer enforce their 45 minute waiting condition!
Chrisgr31 said:
Alpinestars said:
They CHOOSE to pay for enforcement. What heinous crime is committed by putting a wheel over the white line on an end parking space?
Although I agree that putting a wheel over a white line is not a heinous crime the issue remains that the enforcement needs to be paid for. Yes they choose to pay for enforcement but thats usually because they have to because people abuse the parking area so that those who are authorised to use it cannot.After all we see complaints on this forum about people parking in other peoples spaces etc. I also guess you would not be terribly impressed if random people parked on your drive and you than had to spend money to stop them.
In some cases enforcement is introduced as it is a means to raise money, but in most cases it is introduced to get rid of a problem, and is a last resort and the landowner has been forced to introduce it by those irresponsible, inconsiderate parkers. Are you saying that landowners should accept that drivers can park on whoevers land they like, whenever they like, and that if a landowner doesnt want them there then they should pay for enforcement to stop them?
Mill Wheel said:
Booths supermarket in Windermere is built in the old railway station, but access is from the side opposite the new station and it's car park.
To get from Booths car park to the station, involves either a long walk around, or a short cut through Booths store - there is an exit into the station yard while they are open.
Parking Eye have the task of administering the free car park - free for two hours, no return within 1 hour.
There have been numerous instances of shoppers at Booths being caught out because after shopping, they have elected to have lunch in Booths cafe and tea rooms, and their total stay has exceeded two hours.
Lunch or afternoon tea there is not cheap, so we are talking of a dining experience rather than a quick bite to eat - especially since there is free WiFi!
Lakeland - the kitchenware shop have their HQ and shop on the other side of the tracks from Booth car park.
THEIR car park is accessed via the Station car park - but has NO enforcement or limits on how long you can park.
They have NO problems with lack of spaces, or people using their car park to avoid the station car park charges, AND the car park is left open 24 hours a day.
Needless to say, Booths and Parking Eye are becoming increasingly unpopular as more and more customers fall victim to the ANPR base automated enforcement.
The only loss Booths suffer is from customers who now go elsewhere after being penalised for using them.
Meanwhile, the Morrisons Local store in town has thrown Parking Eye out of their car park, and now no longer enforce their 45 minute waiting condition!
I recently visited Lakeland twice recently and they have a man monitoring parking on site. I believe that he is watching for drivers parking up then leaving the yard.To get from Booths car park to the station, involves either a long walk around, or a short cut through Booths store - there is an exit into the station yard while they are open.
Parking Eye have the task of administering the free car park - free for two hours, no return within 1 hour.
There have been numerous instances of shoppers at Booths being caught out because after shopping, they have elected to have lunch in Booths cafe and tea rooms, and their total stay has exceeded two hours.
Lunch or afternoon tea there is not cheap, so we are talking of a dining experience rather than a quick bite to eat - especially since there is free WiFi!
Lakeland - the kitchenware shop have their HQ and shop on the other side of the tracks from Booth car park.
THEIR car park is accessed via the Station car park - but has NO enforcement or limits on how long you can park.
They have NO problems with lack of spaces, or people using their car park to avoid the station car park charges, AND the car park is left open 24 hours a day.
Needless to say, Booths and Parking Eye are becoming increasingly unpopular as more and more customers fall victim to the ANPR base automated enforcement.
The only loss Booths suffer is from customers who now go elsewhere after being penalised for using them.
Meanwhile, the Morrisons Local store in town has thrown Parking Eye out of their car park, and now no longer enforce their 45 minute waiting condition!
Chrisgr31 said:
Are you saying that landowners should accept that drivers can park on whoevers land they like, whenever they like, and that if a landowner doesnt want them there then they should pay for enforcement to stop them?
Like all things in life, a bit of common sense is required. I'm talking about "out of town" shopping centres, where the landlord is paid by the retailers and I spend money with the retailers. I'd have no business parking in those places other than to line the pockets of the retailers. I'm pretty sure they'd rather I visited those places notwithstanding that I park on the white lines. There really is no loss or grievance caused to anyone.
I wouldn't dream of parking in someone's allocated spot or private property.
PurpleMoonlight said:
Land owners and users need a simple and cost effective method to combat the selfish scumbags.
I have people parking in my businesses spaces. There is nothing I can currently effectively do save for trying to get their details from DVLA and then applying to the Court for an injunction. My solicitor advises I am unlikely to be awarded costs for that.
I have left polite notes on their cars, but they continue. My colleague even caught one in person and asked them not to, they said okay then walked away from their car leaving it there, and they were back the next day!
I sympathise but I also think that if they were my spaces I would be able to (quite legally) make it more convenient for unauthorised users to park elsewhere. It might take a few days but I'm sure they'd get the message.I have people parking in my businesses spaces. There is nothing I can currently effectively do save for trying to get their details from DVLA and then applying to the Court for an injunction. My solicitor advises I am unlikely to be awarded costs for that.
I have left polite notes on their cars, but they continue. My colleague even caught one in person and asked them not to, they said okay then walked away from their car leaving it there, and they were back the next day!
PurpleMoonlight said:
Land owners and users need a simple and cost effective method to combat the selfish scumbags.
I have people parking in my businesses spaces. There is nothing I can currently effectively do save for trying to get their details from DVLA and then applying to the Court for an injunction. My solicitor advises I am unlikely to be awarded costs for that.
I have left polite notes on their cars, but they continue. My colleague even caught one in person and asked them not to, they said okay then walked away from their car leaving it there, and they were back the next day!
I assume you can't put a barrier across the entrance?I have people parking in my businesses spaces. There is nothing I can currently effectively do save for trying to get their details from DVLA and then applying to the Court for an injunction. My solicitor advises I am unlikely to be awarded costs for that.
I have left polite notes on their cars, but they continue. My colleague even caught one in person and asked them not to, they said okay then walked away from their car leaving it there, and they were back the next day!
PurpleMoonlight said:
Flibble said:
I assume you can't put a barrier across the entrance?
Nope. I have nine spaces in an area of over one hundred.The transcript came originally from here.
http://parking-prankster.com/case-law.html
The Prankster funds these transcripts from sales of his 'How to fight ParkingEye' book. Some of the other transcripts are quite amusing too, and are all worth a read if a parking company are taking you to court to find out what actually happens in this type of case.
http://parking-prankster.com/case-law.html
The Prankster funds these transcripts from sales of his 'How to fight ParkingEye' book. Some of the other transcripts are quite amusing too, and are all worth a read if a parking company are taking you to court to find out what actually happens in this type of case.
10 Pence Short said:
You couldn't make it up.
If we're into the 'couldn't make it up' category, apparently last Friday's court hearing was in that league too, when a high profile parking case being heard by a high court judge (HHJ Moloney) was sabotaged by some idiot phoning the Claimant's barrister and pretending to be their witness.http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/co...
10 Pence Short said:
Also bear in mind that for the land owner, the true purpose is proper control of their parking facilities, which is a perfectly valid requirement.
This is the issue which IMHO 95% op people don't get.What's going to happen with Parking Eye?
Well if I were them, I'd restructure the contractual side whereby my contract with the landowner was shored up by the new structure, new signage also, one which would stand up to legal scrutiny. Then, I could show a bone fide loss on behalf of the landowner.
Would Parking Eye go bust? No, because the people who have defaulted previously, will continue to default.
Remember my point at the top of the thread about being baffled that Parking Eye don't know of the "You had one job..." meme and just do that one job properly?
Well I think that goes both ways.
The public need to understand that using someone's land to leave your car is not a God-given right. You either pay for it, or you don't but either way - you have to park in the way that they contractually require you to.
If the parker understands that "You had one job..." also applies to them, and to get free parking they need to:
a) Read a sign immediately after parking
b) Park within the white lines
c) Come back within X hours
Then they have no reason whatsoever not to. And if they fail that test, then they have made themselves a victim.
My preference to shore up the situation would be for a statutory addition to the Protection of Freedoms Act. This addition would make provision for private parking penalties, so PPCs no longer have to rely on contractual relationships to enforce them. It would also appoint an industry regulator to set the processes and amounts charged by all PPCs. It would make being a PPC a regulated activity.
This way, PPCs would be able to operate in a consistent way throughout the industry and people parking would know what to expect. Operating in a way inconsistent with the regulations would become an offence. Land owners would have statutory protection from abuse of their facilities.
If I had an opinion on a fair charging structure, I think £75 with a reduction to £50 for payment within 14 days of notification would be reasonable.
This way, PPCs would be able to operate in a consistent way throughout the industry and people parking would know what to expect. Operating in a way inconsistent with the regulations would become an offence. Land owners would have statutory protection from abuse of their facilities.
If I had an opinion on a fair charging structure, I think £75 with a reduction to £50 for payment within 14 days of notification would be reasonable.
JustinP1 said:
This is the issue which IMHO 95% op people don't get.
What's going to happen with Parking Eye?
Well if I were them, I'd restructure the contractual side whereby my contract with the landowner was shored up by the new structure, new signage also, one which would stand up to legal scrutiny. Then, I could show a bone fide loss on behalf of the landowner.
Would Parking Eye go bust? No, because the people who have defaulted previously, will continue to default.
Remember my point at the top of the thread about being baffled that Parking Eye don't know of the "You had one job..." meme and just do that one job properly?
Well I think that goes both ways.
The public need to understand that using someone's land to leave your car is not a God-given right. You either pay for it, or you don't but either way - you have to park in the way that they contractually require you to.
If the parker understands that "You had one job..." also applies to them, and to get free parking they need to:
a) Read a sign immediately after parking
b) Park within the white lines
c) Come back within X hours
Then they have no reason whatsoever not to. And if they fail that test, then they have made themselves a victim.
Agree to a certain extent, but firstly Parking Companies should What's going to happen with Parking Eye?
Well if I were them, I'd restructure the contractual side whereby my contract with the landowner was shored up by the new structure, new signage also, one which would stand up to legal scrutiny. Then, I could show a bone fide loss on behalf of the landowner.
Would Parking Eye go bust? No, because the people who have defaulted previously, will continue to default.
Remember my point at the top of the thread about being baffled that Parking Eye don't know of the "You had one job..." meme and just do that one job properly?
Well I think that goes both ways.
The public need to understand that using someone's land to leave your car is not a God-given right. You either pay for it, or you don't but either way - you have to park in the way that they contractually require you to.
If the parker understands that "You had one job..." also applies to them, and to get free parking they need to:
a) Read a sign immediately after parking
b) Park within the white lines
c) Come back within X hours
Then they have no reason whatsoever not to. And if they fail that test, then they have made themselves a victim.
a) Provide easily accessible signs showing terms and conditions in plain English.
b) Provide properly marked and allocated parking bays
c) Be prepared to make allowances Not X hours and 30 seconds and you’re done
JustinP1 said:
This is the issue which IMHO 95% op people don't get.
What's going to happen with Parking Eye?
Well if I were them, I'd restructure the contractual side whereby my contract with the landowner was shored up by the new structure, new signage also, one which would stand up to legal scrutiny. Then, I could show a bone fide loss on behalf of the landowner.
Would Parking Eye go bust? No, because the people who have defaulted previously, will continue to default.
Remember my point at the top of the thread about being baffled that Parking Eye don't know of the "You had one job..." meme and just do that one job properly?
Well I think that goes both ways.
The public need to understand that using someone's land to leave your car is not a God-given right. You either pay for it, or you don't but either way - you have to park in the way that they contractually require you to.
If the parker understands that "You had one job..." also applies to them, and to get free parking they need to:
a) Read a sign immediately after parking
b) Park within the white lines
c) Come back within X hours
Then they have no reason whatsoever not to. And if they fail that test, then they have made themselves a victim.
They won't though will they as 99.99% of people just pay up when they get the original bill. Out of literally everyone I know I'm the only person to even consider contesting any of these petty fines.What's going to happen with Parking Eye?
Well if I were them, I'd restructure the contractual side whereby my contract with the landowner was shored up by the new structure, new signage also, one which would stand up to legal scrutiny. Then, I could show a bone fide loss on behalf of the landowner.
Would Parking Eye go bust? No, because the people who have defaulted previously, will continue to default.
Remember my point at the top of the thread about being baffled that Parking Eye don't know of the "You had one job..." meme and just do that one job properly?
Well I think that goes both ways.
The public need to understand that using someone's land to leave your car is not a God-given right. You either pay for it, or you don't but either way - you have to park in the way that they contractually require you to.
If the parker understands that "You had one job..." also applies to them, and to get free parking they need to:
a) Read a sign immediately after parking
b) Park within the white lines
c) Come back within X hours
Then they have no reason whatsoever not to. And if they fail that test, then they have made themselves a victim.
TX.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff