Parking Eye- Appeal on hold
Discussion
S11Steve said:
It is indeed a numbers game for the parking companies, especially as there is so much incorrect advice out there telling people to ignore the tickets as they are unenforceable.
My own experience of Parking Eye and UKPC is that they give up quite easy if you challenge them with anything remotely legal based, rather than just mitigation. PE issue about 30,000 court claims per year, with allegedly fewer than 3000 being contested. The rest are "ignored" and a default judgement issued.
UKPC couldn't find their own arse with both hands, let alone their way to win a court claim, but they are persistent in correspondence, and then they pass it DRP/Zenith who are even more persistent.
The legislation that covers private parking is so flaky and full of holes. It is clear it was rushed through as an appeasement to the parking industry when clamping was outlawed, and not fully thought through
After my company sec appealed and they said on hold till you give us driver details as he only pulled in for a moment, I sent them a legal letter and they just said appeal failed!My own experience of Parking Eye and UKPC is that they give up quite easy if you challenge them with anything remotely legal based, rather than just mitigation. PE issue about 30,000 court claims per year, with allegedly fewer than 3000 being contested. The rest are "ignored" and a default judgement issued.
UKPC couldn't find their own arse with both hands, let alone their way to win a court claim, but they are persistent in correspondence, and then they pass it DRP/Zenith who are even more persistent.
The legislation that covers private parking is so flaky and full of holes. It is clear it was rushed through as an appeasement to the parking industry when clamping was outlawed, and not fully thought through
S11Steve said:
There's no obligation to name the driver stated in POFA 2012, so arguably a win there on that point! IPC try that quite often too, but again where they do it's a good sign that they wouldn't want it to be seen in a court claim.
As most PPC enforcement is based on signage, there's very few that specify if parking and stopping are classed as the same thing. The few signs that I know of that do state "No stopping" are not on relevant land, i.e - Liverpool & Doncaster airports, so would ever get in front of a judge anyway.
As most PPC enforcement is based on signage, there's very few that specify if parking and stopping are classed as the same thing. The few signs that I know of that do state "No stopping" are not on relevant land, i.e - Liverpool & Doncaster airports, so would ever get in front of a judge anyway.
Bpa state a reasonable grace period must be allowed to read and decide if the driver wishes to accept the terms. PE stated they have a grace period in their submission but make no reference to it or its length.
The contract they provide as mostly unreadable and heavily redacted. The grace period information was covered and PE told a previous appeal their shiny new contract issued in April 2016 replaced this now terminated agreement. No one has commented on this fact from popla or PE but probably why I won as I questioned this.
Also they have lost planning permission for short term parking at the site and now only have 5 hour £25 minimum charge from the council, however PE care not and continue to operate outside of the planning permission.
S11Steve said:
But do we know who the operator is or was?
Was it the landowner?
Was it a retail park management company?
Was the parking company the operator?
Did the parking company even have a valid contract with the landowner to issue charges?
Was it even relevant land in the scheme of POFA?
Was the signage even compliant to form a contract?
Without knowing the answers to these, nobody can say if there even was a fault, let alone who it belonged to.
But let's send a £100 invoice and see if some shmuck pays up anyway?
I was not drivingWas it the landowner?
Was it a retail park management company?
Was the parking company the operator?
Did the parking company even have a valid contract with the landowner to issue charges?
Was it even relevant land in the scheme of POFA?
Was the signage even compliant to form a contract?
Without knowing the answers to these, nobody can say if there even was a fault, let alone who it belonged to.
But let's send a £100 invoice and see if some shmuck pays up anyway?
The landowner is a developer they contracted elite parking Ltd, then they contracted parking eye.
Its a gravel pit ear marked for development but elite keep applying for 3 year planning to run it as a car park, they lost the right to operate it as parking eye do currently as short term on the 31st Jan 16. Parking eye have ignored Leeds city council and carried on operating it as short term all day with over night parking, leads said minimum 5 hours £25 minimum charge 6.20am-8pm only, That was if they made improvements shown in the elite parking planning application. Have they done anything no!
Parking eye lost on lack of land owner authority so no!
No their signage and notice was not pofa complaint. They served it after the 14 days so did not achieve keepe liability.
No we claim it's not complaint and signage plan they submitted shows signs since removed and some not in the photos provided. One photo dated 31.01.15, says 'sign removed 02.09.15'! I drove a bus through there operator submission.
Contract and signage are unclear and unreadable and unlit. The chance you could read them without and walking parking first are slim.
Parking Eye lost loads of appeals using the heavily redacted blurly scanned a billions times contract dated dec 15. They in a march 12th appeal provided POPLA with a new one with new owner dated the 1st april 16 stating it superceeded all previous contracts on aire street leeds site. They lost the appeal as it was dated before the 12th march. I can only assume they thought they would try the old contract on our appeal (22nd march) as they new the april contract was no good. Fraud or just a massive clerical error, you decide!
Edited by surveyor_101 on Wednesday 1st June 19:42
Edited by surveyor_101 on Wednesday 1st June 19:45
S11Steve said:
But do we know who the operator is or was?
Was it the landowner?
Was it a retail park management company?
Was the parking company the operator?
Did the parking company even have a valid contract with the landowner to issue charges?
Was it even relevant land in the scheme of POFA?
Was the signage even compliant to form a contract?
Without knowing the answers to these, nobody can say if there even was a fault, let alone who it belonged to.
But let's send a £100 invoice and see if some shmuck pays up anyway?
I was not drivingWas it the landowner?
Was it a retail park management company?
Was the parking company the operator?
Did the parking company even have a valid contract with the landowner to issue charges?
Was it even relevant land in the scheme of POFA?
Was the signage even compliant to form a contract?
Without knowing the answers to these, nobody can say if there even was a fault, let alone who it belonged to.
But let's send a £100 invoice and see if some shmuck pays up anyway?
The landowner is a developer they contacted elite parking Ltd, then they contracted parking eye.
Its a gravel pit ear marked for development but elite keep applying for 3 year planning to run it as a car park, they lost the right to operate it as parking eye do on the 31st Jan 16. Parking eye have ignored Leeds city council and carried on operating it as shot term all day over night parking spot, leads said strike hours £25 minimum charge for 5 hours if they made improvement in the elite parking planning app. Have they done anything no!
Parking eye lost on lack of land owner authority so no!
No their signage and notice was not pofa complaint. They served it after the 14 days so did not achieve keepe liability.
No we claim it's not complaint and signage plan they submitted shows signs since removed and not in the photos provided. One photo dated 31.01.15 sign removed 02.09.15! I drove a bus through there operator submission.
Contact and signage are unclear and unreadable and unlit. The chance you could read them with parking first are slim.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff