Parking Eye taking me to a small claims court
Discussion
n3il123 said:
The Mad Monk said:
irfan1712 said:
Hello all
I was parked there for about 20minutes around 10pm on a thursday night having a coffee, in an unlit carpark, with no lit signage and nothing obvious to tell me not to park there. There was heavy rain at the time, and my engine was running.
What is the relevance of the weather and the running engine and the beverage that you were consuming?I was parked there for about 20minutes around 10pm on a thursday night having a coffee, in an unlit carpark, with no lit signage and nothing obvious to tell me not to park there. There was heavy rain at the time, and my engine was running.
johnfm said:
Are Parking Eye obligated to issue a POPLA appeal number if you haven't appealed in accordance with their appeal terms.
Check the Code of Practice for independent parking operators.
Read the rules on signage - Popla appeals are easy if they don't meet the signage rules.
POPLA (and IAS, although that is a sham) is available up until court proceedings are issued, however it can be suffered as a form of mediation prior to a hearing.Check the Code of Practice for independent parking operators.
Read the rules on signage - Popla appeals are easy if they don't meet the signage rules.
irfan1712 said:
final letter from today - Parking eye has officially addressed my areas of appeal, simplified in the case of :
1. their apnr cameras are always correct, regularly checked, which when scanning a plate goes through 'multiple' processes to ensure data collected is correct
2. suitable signage is present, they have gone as far as sending me library pics of each sign on the site, and even a site layout of where said signs are
3. very important - parking eye claim that after my appeal was declined by them, they sent a letter giving me the opportunity to go through POPLA (parking on private land appeals). they have sent a copy of the letter addressed to me on 16th december. i did NOT receive this letter!!!
4. signage by law doesn't need to be lit, according to them. in their opinion my headlights was sufficient at illuminating said signage ( even in poor weather conditions?)
1. 1. their apnr cameras are always correct, regularly checked, which when scanning a plate goes through 'multiple' processes to ensure data collected is correct
2. suitable signage is present, they have gone as far as sending me library pics of each sign on the site, and even a site layout of where said signs are
3. very important - parking eye claim that after my appeal was declined by them, they sent a letter giving me the opportunity to go through POPLA (parking on private land appeals). they have sent a copy of the letter addressed to me on 16th december. i did NOT receive this letter!!!
4. signage by law doesn't need to be lit, according to them. in their opinion my headlights was sufficient at illuminating said signage ( even in poor weather conditions?)
The stock PE 'technical b/s baffles brains' response. If it were true, there would never be any proven 'double dip' cases.Plenty of references to this on Parking Prankster's blog.
2. How do you know those pics are from that specific car park? PPCs are not above providing ones from an entirely different site.
Also, what is actually present on site doesn't necessarily conform to a pretty drawing/plan either.
3. Quite a bit of mail goes walkabout in the pre-Christmas period: Royal Mail relies on a cadre of temporary workers during that time.
. https://jobs.royalmailgroup.com/go/Christmas-Casua...
4. There are no regulations about lighting signs in a private car park: The BPA COP is silent on the matter as well.
Visibility/legibility are best argued on a case-by-case basis: both will depends on the facts which may differ from site to site.
Red Devil said:
4. There are no regulations about lighting signs in a private car park: The BPA COP is silent on the matter as well.
Visibility/legibility are best argued on a case-by-case basis: both will depends on the facts which may differ from site to site.
Which is why it's a good idea for the op to take some 'dark' pictures of the car park at night and use them in evidence.Visibility/legibility are best argued on a case-by-case basis: both will depends on the facts which may differ from site to site.
Not that it really matters to you now but peculiar box looking ANPR cameras that are mounted viewing the entry and exits only are a thing of the past. Most CCTV manufacturers now incorporate ANPR into the recording software so most cameras they manufacture can be used for ANPR including some with 100m+ ranges. Not sure how this conflict with official guidelines though..
There's plenty of places on that part of Newport road you can have a coffee at and not get fined, you'd just look like a dodgy b
d sitting there with your lights on..
There's plenty of places on that part of Newport road you can have a coffee at and not get fined, you'd just look like a dodgy b
d sitting there with your lights on.. bad company said:
Red Devil said:
4. There are no regulations about lighting signs in a private car park: The BPA COP is silent on the matter as well.
Visibility/legibility are best argued on a case-by-case basis: both will depends on the facts which may differ from site to site.
Which is why it's a good idea for the op to take some 'dark' pictures of the car park at night and use them in evidence.Visibility/legibility are best argued on a case-by-case basis: both will depends on the facts which may differ from site to site.
However he may have some difficulty in maintaining he never saw the sign* at the entrance.
There is a ruddy great street light ~30 ft away on the other side of the road (pan right).
https://goo.gl/maps/QcwBsnemXnM2
* The one which prohibits parking outside the store opening hours: it would be fairly obvious whether it was still open at 10 pm.
Firstly, let me state I am not a lawyer, secondly, tongue firmly in cheek.
If the government deems you to be driving if you are not moving with the engine running (See mobile phone regulations for this) then surely a private company cannot argue otherwise. Therefore, by virtue of the fact you left the engine running you did not park up, and cannot be taken to court for failure to abide by the parking restrictions, as you were not parked.
If the government deems you to be driving if you are not moving with the engine running (See mobile phone regulations for this) then surely a private company cannot argue otherwise. Therefore, by virtue of the fact you left the engine running you did not park up, and cannot be taken to court for failure to abide by the parking restrictions, as you were not parked.
lunarscope said:
What is their 'loss' caused by you parking in contravention of the implied contract between you and them ?
Aren't 'no loss' penalty clauses against contract law ?
Not since the Parking Eye vs Beavis appeal decision.Aren't 'no loss' penalty clauses against contract law ?
There's no need to show a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and a penalty can be charged (in that case, £80 was viewed by the court as a reasonable charge). This has implications far beyond parking enforcement.
There's an excellent analysis by John de Waal QC at http://www.hardwicke.co.uk/insights/articles/the-l...
Ramona said:
lunarscope said:
What is their 'loss' caused by you parking in contravention of the implied contract between you and them ?
Aren't 'no loss' penalty clauses against contract law ?
Not since the Parking Eye vs Beavis appeal decision.Aren't 'no loss' penalty clauses against contract law ?
There's no need to show a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and a penalty can be charged (in that case, £80 was viewed by the court as a reasonable charge). This has implications far beyond parking enforcement.
There's an excellent analysis by John de Waal QC at http://www.hardwicke.co.uk/insights/articles/the-l...
regards,
Jet
Seems that PE have another concern that leads to discontinued claims - http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/pa...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff