Caught on Parking Eye - HELP
Discussion
dwspirit said:
At least this is the correct way to deal with parking problems and not the methods used be LBS Enforcement scum of Mark Stone and Matthew Boosey. The company will take you to the small claims court.
Oh no they won't apparently as they will have no proof who was driving.mybrainhurts said:
pattyg said:
Just googled them...advice is not to pay...apologies I panicked a bit as I'd never heard of them up her in Jockland.
Up who...?dwspirit said:
At least this is the correct way to deal with parking problems and not the methods used be LBS Enforcement scum of Mark Stone and Matthew Boosey. The company will take you to the small claims court.
You need to read a few more SP&L posts ... there are plenty on this topic.The car park operator has a contract with the DRIVER of the vehicle. They do not know who this is.
The driver can only enter into a contract if they know the terms of the contract, thus the requirement for notices stating the terms to be displayed in such a manner as to be easily readable and hard to miss.
The 'policing' company will send a threatening letter, often seeming to be a 'fine' (which they cannot levy), and follow this up with further threats including court action and bailiffs (often citing the latter before mentioing the former ... which cannot happen). Their letters are addressed to the RK - whose details DVLA are happy to supply for a small fee. They often imply that the RK is responsible for the 'fine'; or failing that, that the RK must identify the driver. Again, they imply that this is a requirement in law ... it is not.
Some time ago, in a somewhat jocular mood, I drafted the letter (reproduced below) - generally referred to as "Streaky's Letter" - which some PHers claim to have used.
The general consensus though, is to ignore their strident demands. They will eventuallly peter out. If you are interested in detective work, you might discover that all the letters (usually) come from a string of companies owned by the same people.
Should they actually proceed to court (civil, not criminal), you can have the hearing moved to your local court - which usually puts additional cost on them (one of their tricks is to create the illusion that you will incur cost in travelling to a court some distance away). They will have to provide evidence that the defendant was the driver at the time, with whom they entered into contract.
In short, court action is very unlikely.
Streaky
=
"Streaky's Letter"
To whom it may concern
[Add their title and address, Miss Jones}
I am in receipt of your letter dated [insert the date Miss Jones] alleging that a vehicle registered to me overstayed an arbitrary duration in a vehicle park attached to one of your stores.
As I am sure you will be aware, it is the driver of the vehicle with whom any contract to park was made, not the Registered Keeper. You will also be aware that the terms of any such contract must be set out in such a manner as to be obvious to anyone with whom you wished to make the contract. These terms must comply with all applicable contract law, such as the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.
Should you wish to pursue this claim, please supply evidence that the person parking the vehicle you allege to have overstayed the set duration would have had the opportunity to read the contract terms. Such evidence must be, as a minimum:
• a detailed route and timings of the vehicle's travel into and through the vehicle park;
• a detailed route of the driver's passage out of the vehicle and into the store - this and the evidence listed immediately above are to show that the driver had reasonable opportunity to see and read the contract terms;
• photographs of all relevant signage in situ in locus in quo at the time of the alleged overstaying so as to show that the signs were actually readable;
• an accurately-drawn, scaled, map showing the location of each sign and indicating which you believe the driver would have had the easy opportunity to read (the routes of the vehicle and driver should be superimposed upon the map);
• details of the weather conditions at the time, in particular the visibility (all to be confirmed by the Meteorological Office);
• sufficient details of the driver with whom you claim to have made a contract to enable their unique identification;
• a detailed description of the processes followed to record and analyse the evidence of the alleged overstaying; and
• a notarised statement from a senior manager at the store to the effect that your recording and analytical systems were working normally at the time of the alleged overstaying.
Without the above, I cannot entertain your claim and any further demands for payment will be considered harassment and will be reported to the police with a view to your criminal prosecution under s1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1998, s85 of the Postal Services Act 2000, s127 of the Communications Act 2003, and/or s2 of the Protection from Harrassment Act 1997 - this last with a view to the court issuing a Restraining Order against you. Additionally, civil action will be taken against you personally and your employer to cease and desist and for the recovery of all costs, together with a substantial payment in compensation for the mental pain and suffering caused.
I expect your reply by return, either providing the evidence requested above or indicating simply your termination of this correspondence.
[Just PP it Miss Jones ... and are we still on for some nookie tonight?]
Streaky
streaky said:
Lots of very pertinent stuff plus...
The car park operator has a contract with the DRIVER of the vehicle. They do not know who this is.
OP kinda stuffed if the below is true...what? (my bold)The car park operator has a contract with the DRIVER of the vehicle. They do not know who this is.
OP said:
I was caught on video leaving 15 mins after the 2 hour limit at a Retail Park in Wales
oldsoak said:
streaky said:
Lots of very pertinent stuff plus...
The car park operator has a contract with the DRIVER of the vehicle. They do not know who this is.
OP kinda stuffed if the below is true...what? (my bold)The car park operator has a contract with the DRIVER of the vehicle. They do not know who this is.
OP said:
I was caught on video leaving 15 mins after the 2 hour limit at a Retail Park in Wales
Even if they are, you need continuous footage of the driver arriving, observing the contract signage, and leaving again.
Which they won't have.
CinqAbarth said:
oldsoak said:
streaky said:
Lots of very pertinent stuff plus...
The car park operator has a contract with the DRIVER of the vehicle. They do not know who this is.
OP kinda stuffed if the below is true...what? (my bold)The car park operator has a contract with the DRIVER of the vehicle. They do not know who this is.
OP said:
I was caught on video leaving 15 mins after the 2 hour limit at a Retail Park in Wales
Even if they are, you need continuous footage of the driver arriving, observing the contract signage, and leaving again.
Which they won't have.
Personally I not be so quick to negate video evidence without first seeing it...
OP said:
I was caught on video leaving 15 mins after the 2 hour limit at a Retail Park in Wales
Was the parking free? In which case you have overstayed your free parking allowance by 12.5%, no? You could try - and I have done this - offering them compensation for their ACTUAL LOSS. Their actual loss is £0.00 x 12.5% = £0.00 <-- this is all they would be entitled to in law.In the bin!!!
Could I also point you towards my poll on the subject - the stats so far are quite interesting....
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
oldsoak said:
streaky said:
Lots of very pertinent stuff plus...
The car park operator has a contract with the DRIVER of the vehicle. They do not know who this is.
OP kinda stuffed if the below is true...what? (my bold)The car park operator has a contract with the DRIVER of the vehicle. They do not know who this is.
OP said:
I was caught on video leaving 15 mins after the 2 hour limit at a Retail Park in Wales
The scammers at Booths supermarket in Windermere claim to have video evidence, but in fact all they have is a numberplate record - read by video and converted into a digital file of the number using ANPR! It is so dumb it cannot even tell if you leave then re-enter later in the day and leave again - it takes the first record, and the LAST record and calculates your time as the whole elapsed time of the two events!
Mill Wheel said:
oldsoak said:
streaky said:
Lots of very pertinent stuff plus...
The car park operator has a contract with the DRIVER of the vehicle. They do not know who this is.
OP kinda stuffed if the below is true...what? (my bold)The car park operator has a contract with the DRIVER of the vehicle. They do not know who this is.
OP said:
I was caught on video leaving 15 mins after the 2 hour limit at a Retail Park in Wales
The scammers at Booths supermarket in Windermere claim to have video evidence, but in fact all they have is a numberplate record - read by video and converted into a digital file of the number using ANPR! It is so dumb it cannot even tell if you leave then re-enter later in the day and leave again - it takes the first record, and the LAST record and calculates your time as the whole elapsed time of the two events!
The acid test is to wait and see if they reckon their case is strong enough to take to court and not to volunteer any info that may help them strengthen it along the way.
Quite honestly though, the easiest way to avoid all the hassle is not to overstay ones allotted time orpark where you shouldn't.
We're ultimately only making a rod for our own backs by not playing by the rules as sooner or later, we'll find all car parks having pay on exit machines and nasty barriers that either shred your tyres or otherwise prevent exit until you cough up the cash.
One or two places near me have done just that!
The most recent is a doctors surgery car park in the grounds of a local hospital. This car park whilst free, is controlled by barrier and exit is via entering a code on a keypad. This code is changed regularly and only given to patients who have an appointment with a doctor there.
The main hospital car park (which adjoins this one)is P&D with parking attendants regularly patrolling to make sure you DO P&D.
Even if the company had a full-size mugshot of the OP holding a sign that said "I overstayed", they would not be able to claim £60 or whatever other extortionate sum they are claiming.
Private companies do not have the right to penalise anyone.
If a car park costs £1/hour, and you overstay by an hour, then they can claim the £1 they have lost. If a car park is free, they have lost no revenue, so they can't claim anything.
Parking Eye and all other private parking outfits are just chancers who send speculative invoices hoping some mug will pay them. And of course, the fact that they look like official council parking notices is just a coincidence
With the wealth of information available on the net, only someone who has no internet access or who is highly gullible would ever pay one of these "tickets".
Private companies do not have the right to penalise anyone.
If a car park costs £1/hour, and you overstay by an hour, then they can claim the £1 they have lost. If a car park is free, they have lost no revenue, so they can't claim anything.
Parking Eye and all other private parking outfits are just chancers who send speculative invoices hoping some mug will pay them. And of course, the fact that they look like official council parking notices is just a coincidence
With the wealth of information available on the net, only someone who has no internet access or who is highly gullible would ever pay one of these "tickets".
I think all too often supermarkets are the cause of people over staying their time!
Firstly they keep moving stuff about so you cannot find it easily, secondly where they put those self service checkouts in, they constantly mess up and delay you beyond the time a trained checkout operator would take, and finally they encourage you to eat in their cafe too - and the last few times I have eaten in Morrisons in Southport, the service was so poor, it was 30 minutes before the food we ordered was delivered to the table! Not at a busy time mind you, but after the lunchtime rush had finished!
Unfortunately my mother in law prefers to eat there than a faster delivery outlet... and the free coffee vouchers we were given by way of an apology can only be redeemed there!
Looking up ParkingEye on line gives the impression that they don't have video, and also use intimidation as a tool of their trade!
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php...
Firstly they keep moving stuff about so you cannot find it easily, secondly where they put those self service checkouts in, they constantly mess up and delay you beyond the time a trained checkout operator would take, and finally they encourage you to eat in their cafe too - and the last few times I have eaten in Morrisons in Southport, the service was so poor, it was 30 minutes before the food we ordered was delivered to the table! Not at a busy time mind you, but after the lunchtime rush had finished!
Unfortunately my mother in law prefers to eat there than a faster delivery outlet... and the free coffee vouchers we were given by way of an apology can only be redeemed there!
Looking up ParkingEye on line gives the impression that they don't have video, and also use intimidation as a tool of their trade!
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php...
oldsoak said:
The acid test is to wait and see if they reckon their case is strong enough to take to court and not to volunteer any info that may help them strengthen it along the way.
As you know, they first have to identify the driver in order to take them to court. Short of using G00gle Goggles (when fully working and free of privacy complaints), or perusing Facebook and other social/business networking sites in the hope of matching a poor quality still from a video to a photograph, or lying in wait for the driver at the scene of the original 'crime' ... they don't have much hope - StreakyGassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff