Parking Eye & Underhand Tactics
Discussion
Chrisgr31 said:
Tallbutbuxomly said:
To kill off the argument here I got one along with the threat of legal action etc etc. I kept all docs but have ignored them. That was over a year ago now. They sent me around 3/4 letters then gave up.
I got one about 4 years ago and it seems to have gone away. However since we both got ours the law has changed and therefore the advice as to what to do about them has also changed.silverfoxcc said:
In addition to ignoring all letters, NEVER dispose of any correspondence from them, keep everything enelopes and all, just in case it gets to a real court, pepipoo require everything to put up a good defence
Oops mine are currently burning on the bonfire.I had 10 or so come through last month relating to 'fines' received in March/April...not parking eye though and nothing has ever come from the 20 or so from the same company previously (supermarket car park next to the station - thankfully with a vandalised sign/broken machines)
10 Pence Short said:
Steff1965 said:
I know a court can do that 10P, but I was asking WHEN it had happened as I've not heard of any such case.
I don't hang around county courts all day and they don't tend to be reported cases.What I do know is that it's the pertinent question in any disputed parking case and therefore any judge or claimant will be asking it.
kiethton said:
silverfoxcc said:
In addition to ignoring all letters, NEVER dispose of any correspondence from them, keep everything enelopes and all, just in case it gets to a real court, pepipoo require everything to put up a good defence
Oops mine are currently burning on the bonfire.I had 10 or so come through last month relating to 'fines' received in March/April...not parking eye though and nothing has ever come from the 20 or so from the same company previously (supermarket car park next to the station - thankfully with a vandalised sign/broken machines)
Chrisgr31 said:
Tallbutbuxomly said:
To kill off the argument here I got one along with the threat of legal action etc etc. I kept all docs but have ignored them. That was over a year ago now. They sent me around 3/4 letters then gave up.
I got one about 4 years ago and it seems to have gone away. However since we both got ours the law has changed and therefore the advice as to what to do about them has also changed.As regards the OP I thought that the Highways Dept are looking at this as they are always telling drivers to take a break, and the advice is to have a drink first. So you have your drink and sleep for safety purposes and then get fined £80 for staying too long! Fairly sure its being looked at
Chrisgr31 said:
Tallbutbuxomly said:
To kill off the argument here I got one along with the threat of legal action etc etc. I kept all docs but have ignored them. That was over a year ago now. They sent me around 3/4 letters then gave up.
I got one about 4 years ago and it seems to have gone away. However since we both got ours the law has changed and therefore the advice as to what to do about them has also changed.As regards the OP I thought that the Highways Dept are looking at this as they are always telling drivers to take a break, and the advice is to have a drink first. So you have your drink and sleep for safety purposes and then get fined £80 for staying too long! Fairly sure its being looked at
herewego said:
kiethton said:
silverfoxcc said:
In addition to ignoring all letters, NEVER dispose of any correspondence from them, keep everything enelopes and all, just in case it gets to a real court, pepipoo require everything to put up a good defence
Oops mine are currently burning on the bonfire.I had 10 or so come through last month relating to 'fines' received in March/April...not parking eye though and nothing has ever come from the 20 or so from the same company previously (supermarket car park next to the station - thankfully with a vandalised sign/broken machines)
10 Pence Short said:
Red Devil said:
Do you have any evidence to back up that assertion?
What is this new habit in SPL in asking for 'evidence' for things that are obvious and common sense?If the charge for overstaying was £5, everybody would shrug their shoulders and take a punt. This would defeat the original purpose of the enforcement. If the price for 2 hours parking is nil and the price for 2 hours and 10 minutes £50, it is obvious that the purpose of the charge is to deter you from staying longer than 2 hours.
As a private parking company they are not allowed to issue fines. And to make a charge high enough to become a 'deterrent' then it effectively becomes a fine instead of an invoice for legitimate charges.
And this is the clincher for me.
Why aren't the parking charge notices set at £500 or £1,000? Surely for deterrent then this would be better?
I think you're probably right (though I don't think PPCs struggle too much to justify their losses in court), they do look remarkably like fines.The thing is, they piggy back on contract law, which isn't an entirely comfortable fit with PPC enforcement.
The thing is, effective parking control is a necessary evil on private land, as without it the abuse would be to the serious commercial detriment of the land owner. This is why PPCs were given the olive branch allowing them to pursue the registered keeper without having to prove them an original party to the contract.
The thing is, effective parking control is a necessary evil on private land, as without it the abuse would be to the serious commercial detriment of the land owner. This is why PPCs were given the olive branch allowing them to pursue the registered keeper without having to prove them an original party to the contract.
oyster said:
10 Pence Short said:
Red Devil said:
Do you have any evidence to back up that assertion?
What is this new habit in SPL in asking for 'evidence' for things that are obvious and common sense?If the charge for overstaying was £5, everybody would shrug their shoulders and take a punt. This would defeat the original purpose of the enforcement. If the price for 2 hours parking is nil and the price for 2 hours and 10 minutes £50, it is obvious that the purpose of the charge is to deter you from staying longer than 2 hours.
As a private parking company they are not allowed to issue fines. And to make a charge high enough to become a 'deterrent' then it effectively becomes a fine instead of an invoice for legitimate charges.
And this is the clincher for me.
Why aren't the parking charge notices set at £500 or £1,000? Surely for deterrent then this would be better?
herewego said:
oyster said:
10 Pence Short said:
Red Devil said:
Do you have any evidence to back up that assertion?
What is this new habit in SPL in asking for 'evidence' for things that are obvious and common sense?If the charge for overstaying was £5, everybody would shrug their shoulders and take a punt. This would defeat the original purpose of the enforcement. If the price for 2 hours parking is nil and the price for 2 hours and 10 minutes £50, it is obvious that the purpose of the charge is to deter you from staying longer than 2 hours.
As a private parking company they are not allowed to issue fines. And to make a charge high enough to become a 'deterrent' then it effectively becomes a fine instead of an invoice for legitimate charges.
And this is the clincher for me.
Why aren't the parking charge notices set at £500 or £1,000? Surely for deterrent then this would be better?
If the contract stipulates a charge of £1,000 and someone accepts the contract (by parking in a car park with correct signage) then this can be legally enforced, just as easily as £80 can be.
Unless of course the PPCs claim to the court that £80 is closer to the actual losses suffered? In which case it is about losses then!
Either way, the PPCs want their cake and to eat it too.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff