PE's Without Prejudice Offers keep getting better
Discussion
or 2 tonight.paintman said:
'Parking Eye will sometimes cancel a Parking Charge at the request of our client as a gesture of goodwill'.
My, that's big of them. Just who is working for who?
I tempted to get them out on a ruse to see one of our factory carparks and then get a copy of their standard landowner agreement. See if mentions extortion of monies from users whether or not the BPA code is broken or they even committed a breach. As a landowner you can ask us to cancel a ticket but thats up to us, your only the landowner after all.My, that's big of them. Just who is working for who?
It depends on PE's contract with the landowner. I would fully expect that to place some restriction on the landowner's ability to have PE cancel the tickets, perhaps even making it PE's sole decision when it comes down to it. That would be entirely proper (....once the landowner has decided to protect their parking by using PE).
OP I earlier mentioned disclosure of the contract (between landowner and PE) you had 500 pages of statements and enclosures and understandably focused on the request from landowner to cancel but did you receive that contract?
OP I earlier mentioned disclosure of the contract (between landowner and PE) you had 500 pages of statements and enclosures and understandably focused on the request from landowner to cancel but did you receive that contract?
pork911 said:
It depends on PE's contract with the landowner. I would fully expect that to place some restriction on the landowner's ability to have PE cancel the tickets, perhaps even making it PE's sole decision when it comes down to it. That would be entirely proper (....once the landowner has decided to protect their parking by using PE).
The words in bold are key. The very suggestion that a landowner neither can nor should have the final say over what happens on their own property tells you all you need to know about this scummy industry.Red Devil said:
The words in bold are key. The very suggestion that a landowner neither can nor should have the final say over what happens on their own property tells you all you need to know about this scummy industry.
Their land and if the visitor proves they are genuine or indeed the breach didn't occur, then why would parking eye retain the right to continue to pursue the charge?
blueg33 said:
It will depend entirely on the agreement between land owner and parking co.
Aimed at red as he seems to support such activities. Parking eye other than the beavis case use idiots to mount cases of demanding money by menace? If the driver shows cause to appeal or in some cases gets the landowner involved, PE continue to demand monies by menace in my experience. I won one Popla appeal and their case had more holes than a shower head. They used an old landowner agreement and a site plan that didn't match the photos, I could go on all day.Bpa said they don't care, AOS tell us if operators are doing naughty things or breaching our code. We cant enforce our code it's voluntary. Oh really you enforce on this operator. Oh go away now end of complaint we can't deal with answering difficult questions about or cartel or dodgy activities or practices.
AOS said we don't report breaches we just look at individual appeals. If we did PE would of gone out to busnienss long ago.
Who he?
Chaps
Thanks for all of the replies.
In their witness statements they gave three different versions of how visitors are registered, with a (non-existent) terminal in the reception, then that with the landowner's agreement the terminal was removed, and then a register. Their submissions were a shambles, and would no doubt have annoyed the judge if we'd made it to a hearing.
They said in their witness statements that they'd be represented by a solicitor from a firm (who's name escapes me now). I looked them up, they seem a board lawyers in Canary Wharf, that use solicitors/Legal Execs etc from local firms around the country. I guess in the end it was a business decision, that their representation would cost more than the £110 they could pay me.
I'm not exactly a reasonably well built company director, but not easily worried, certainly not by PE's attempts at extortion. The sheer bulk and aggressive nature of PE's initial letters are very bullying. My wife is easily worried, and PE's threats of court action, bailiffs, seizure of goods, destruction of credit rating right from the outset do clearly work in bullying people to pay up.
One of my other points was that PE don't have planning permission for the signs in the car park. I checked all planning applications going back years for the area. I have lots of time to cause mischief on trains and planes at the moment, so will be writing to Southampton Council to point this out, and see if I can't cause some action here too.
Thanks for all of the replies.
pork911 said:
It depends on PE's contract with the landowner. I would fully expect that to place some restriction on the landowner's ability to have PE cancel the tickets, perhaps even making it PE's sole decision when it comes down to it. That would be entirely proper (....once the landowner has decided to protect their parking by using PE).
OP I earlier mentioned disclosure of the contract (between landowner and PE) you had 500 pages of statements and enclosures and understandably focused on the request from landowner to cancel but did you receive that contract?
In my original correspondence with PE, I did ask them for an unredacted copy of their contract with the landowner, copying large chunks of an older letter Surveyor101 had posted on another PE thread here. (I have since acknowledged Surveyor101 more than once on other PE threads). They ignored my letter, but in their evidence pack for the court, they gave me a reasonably heavily redacted copy of the contract. It does read a bit like a lease, in the way that it gives PE the rights to manage the car park, but allows landowner's visitors to use the car park and be exempt from charges. This bit isn't too tightly defined, i.e. exactly how the details of the landowner's visitors are notified to PE.OP I earlier mentioned disclosure of the contract (between landowner and PE) you had 500 pages of statements and enclosures and understandably focused on the request from landowner to cancel but did you receive that contract?
In their witness statements they gave three different versions of how visitors are registered, with a (non-existent) terminal in the reception, then that with the landowner's agreement the terminal was removed, and then a register. Their submissions were a shambles, and would no doubt have annoyed the judge if we'd made it to a hearing.
They said in their witness statements that they'd be represented by a solicitor from a firm (who's name escapes me now). I looked them up, they seem a board lawyers in Canary Wharf, that use solicitors/Legal Execs etc from local firms around the country. I guess in the end it was a business decision, that their representation would cost more than the £110 they could pay me.
I'm not exactly a reasonably well built company director, but not easily worried, certainly not by PE's attempts at extortion. The sheer bulk and aggressive nature of PE's initial letters are very bullying. My wife is easily worried, and PE's threats of court action, bailiffs, seizure of goods, destruction of credit rating right from the outset do clearly work in bullying people to pay up.
One of my other points was that PE don't have planning permission for the signs in the car park. I checked all planning applications going back years for the area. I have lots of time to cause mischief on trains and planes at the moment, so will be writing to Southampton Council to point this out, and see if I can't cause some action here too.
Edited by catfood12 on Monday 30th January 10:40
catfood12 said:
They said in their witness statements that they'd be represented by a solicitor from a firm (who's name escapes me now). I looked them up, they seem a board lawyers in Canary Wharf, that use solicitors/Legal Execs etc from local firms around the country.
This shower. They appear frequently in the Parking Prankster's blog.Those they farm cases out can be ill prepared and some may have no right of audience at all.
The Legal Services Act 2007 defines who can or cannot conduct litigaton and on what basis.
Defintely worth a closer look.
Red Devil said:
This shower. They appear frequently in the Parking Prankster's blog.
Those they farm cases out can be ill prepared and some may have no right of audience at all.
The Legal Services Act 2007 defines who can or cannot conduct litigaton and on what basis.
Defintely worth a closer look.
That's the lot. Great website, but I bet they rent out the greenest Legal Execs or Paralegals, as the clients like PE have beaten them down on price, and not allowed any prep time for the case. I was looking forward to the hearing and cross examining the legal representative they sent !Those they farm cases out can be ill prepared and some may have no right of audience at all.
The Legal Services Act 2007 defines who can or cannot conduct litigaton and on what basis.
Defintely worth a closer look.
catfood12 said:
That's the lot. Great website, but I bet they rent out the greenest Legal Execs or Paralegals, as the clients like PE have beaten them down on price, and not allowed any prep time for the case. I was looking forward to the hearing and cross examining the legal representative they sent !
I've encountered LPC/SCS law a few times. It seems that parking cases are the short straw amongst the team, and is often seen as character building for the individual brief who has to take it on.catfood12 said:
One of my other points was that PE don't have planning permission for the signs in the car park. I checked all planning applications going back years for the area. I have lots of time to cause mischief on trains and planes at the moment, so will be writing to Southampton Council to point this out, and see if I can't cause some action here too.
I have a meeting tomorrow with an extremely important man in Southampton Council, i'm going to ask the question. Edited by catfood12 on Monday 30th January 10:40
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff