Parking Eye & Underhand Tactics
Discussion
herewego said:
If this particular sevices have a problem with some people abusing the parking facilities then it would be beneficial to them to set aside some all day parking slots at, say, a fiver each.
Um, they do do that. You can use any of the parking bays and pay and display if you intend to stay over 2 hours or whtever the free period is.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.
bryan35 said:
Hmm, no one has mentioned the actual reason why you can ignor the ticket so far...
(may have missed it as only just out of bed of course!)
The parking charge ticket has been issued due of a breach of contract between the landowner/representative (this 'eye' thing) and the person who parked the car. They have absolutely no way AT ALL of knowing who parked the car (and they do know this by the way), so they contact the registered keeper instead. This usally works as the registered keeper is 'Mr Honest' and doesn't know about contract law and is intimidated with the wording of the letter. Mr Honest will usually inadvertantly reveal the identity of the person who parked the car by contacting the issuer of the ticket and saying something like 'I put a ticket on it' 'it wasn't parked across a bay' etc ect etc. If however you just ignor the ticket, there is nothing they can do. Nothing. Nothing at all. Zilch. Zero.
Only you can tell them who parked the car, but there is no requirement or obligation for you to do so, and without this information they are stuffed.
According to the DFT Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4(may have missed it as only just out of bed of course!)
The parking charge ticket has been issued due of a breach of contract between the landowner/representative (this 'eye' thing) and the person who parked the car. They have absolutely no way AT ALL of knowing who parked the car (and they do know this by the way), so they contact the registered keeper instead. This usally works as the registered keeper is 'Mr Honest' and doesn't know about contract law and is intimidated with the wording of the letter. Mr Honest will usually inadvertantly reveal the identity of the person who parked the car by contacting the issuer of the ticket and saying something like 'I put a ticket on it' 'it wasn't parked across a bay' etc ect etc. If however you just ignor the ticket, there is nothing they can do. Nothing. Nothing at all. Zilch. Zero.
Only you can tell them who parked the car, but there is no requirement or obligation for you to do so, and without this information they are stuffed.
of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012:
Recovery of Unpaid Parking Charges
If the keeper does not respond to the notice within 28 days or refuses to pay the parking charge, or refuses (or is unable) to name the driver, the landholder may take action in the Courts against the vehicle keeper to seek recovery of the unpaid parking charge.
Sorry Streaky.
I've had a quick glance over this thread and can't see any mention of the introduction of the Protection of Freedoms Act, apologies if I have missed it.
This has had an effect on what action you should take if you get one of these fake tickets. The advice over on pepipoo is now NOT to ignore but to appeal to the PPC which will probably be rejected and then to appeal to Popla, who are the 'independent' appeals for private parking tickets.
On pepipoo, there are about thirty or forty live cases, all posted this last week or so, all from Parking Eye. Genuine court papers have been issued from them as well.
One argument mentioned there is, if ever it went to court, which it can, and some ppc's have won'before, it will be asked why you didn't nip this in the bud early on. There will be a good defence in 99 percent of cases as well to win at popla. Good thing is, appealing to popla costs them £27 and costs you nothing. If enough people do this with the right arguments (not just standard letters) then the parking companies will either go bust or start to drop more tickets when you appeal to them.
I'm going through two tickets now and am about to send of appeals to the ppc. They are supposed to, for instance get the notice to keeper (what it seems the op has had) to me within 14 days of the offence. They didn't. They will fail at court if I ever it went that far. They are also likely to reject my appeal so it will now cost them 27 per ticket for me to appeal at popla, which by the letter of the law, I will win.
So, to sum it up, the new advice for these fake parking tickets is now not to ignore but to at at least get some advice from pepipoo etc, especially where parking eye are concerned.
This has had an effect on what action you should take if you get one of these fake tickets. The advice over on pepipoo is now NOT to ignore but to appeal to the PPC which will probably be rejected and then to appeal to Popla, who are the 'independent' appeals for private parking tickets.
On pepipoo, there are about thirty or forty live cases, all posted this last week or so, all from Parking Eye. Genuine court papers have been issued from them as well.
One argument mentioned there is, if ever it went to court, which it can, and some ppc's have won'before, it will be asked why you didn't nip this in the bud early on. There will be a good defence in 99 percent of cases as well to win at popla. Good thing is, appealing to popla costs them £27 and costs you nothing. If enough people do this with the right arguments (not just standard letters) then the parking companies will either go bust or start to drop more tickets when you appeal to them.
I'm going through two tickets now and am about to send of appeals to the ppc. They are supposed to, for instance get the notice to keeper (what it seems the op has had) to me within 14 days of the offence. They didn't. They will fail at court if I ever it went that far. They are also likely to reject my appeal so it will now cost them 27 per ticket for me to appeal at popla, which by the letter of the law, I will win.
So, to sum it up, the new advice for these fake parking tickets is now not to ignore but to at at least get some advice from pepipoo etc, especially where parking eye are concerned.
Of course, putting the ticket through unsuccessful appeals will increase the losses/ make it easier to justify them when claimed by the PPC.
As for 'nipping it in the bud', if the debtor won't offer or accept any reasonable kind of settlement prior to trial, then there's little the PPC can do. A court will see that the PPC offered a reduced (typically 50%) amount to settle early and that the defendant refused that reduced amount.
When you are facing a legitimate claim and have done all you can to frustrate it, courts will not look kindly on barrack room lawyering in an attempt to avoid your debts.
As for 'nipping it in the bud', if the debtor won't offer or accept any reasonable kind of settlement prior to trial, then there's little the PPC can do. A court will see that the PPC offered a reduced (typically 50%) amount to settle early and that the defendant refused that reduced amount.
When you are facing a legitimate claim and have done all you can to frustrate it, courts will not look kindly on barrack room lawyering in an attempt to avoid your debts.
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 will not be held to ransom. My feeling on it was if they want to take me to court for 80 quid then they are welcome to and they can justify the costs to a magistrate. if they can I will pay the costs all of them if they cant then it sets a benchmark and I would put my case details online at pepi etc for people to reference and use should they be taken to court in similar cases.
I don't mind getting fined but it needs to be within reason. An 80 quid fine issued by a computer costs the company a hell of a lot less than one issued by a roving parking warden who has to be paid a salary.
My local council tickets are 25 quid. If they can afford to pay all their wardens and keep the tickets at that price then these jokers cannot justify 80 quid a ticket.
I will not be held to ransom. My feeling on it was if they want to take me to court for 80 quid then they are welcome to and they can justify the costs to a magistrate. if they can I will pay the costs all of them if they cant then it sets a benchmark and I would put my case details online at pepi etc for people to reference and use should they be taken to court in similar cases.
I don't mind getting fined but it needs to be within reason. An 80 quid fine issued by a computer costs the company a hell of a lot less than one issued by a roving parking warden who has to be paid a salary.
My local council tickets are 25 quid. If they can afford to pay all their wardens and keep the tickets at that price then these jokers cannot justify 80 quid a ticket.
Oh I would also advise that if you over stay for no more than ten minutes and they send a loopy fine of say 60-80 quid ignore it. Its very subjective. Its easy to be up to ten minutes out compared to their system. Bear in mind when you drive in you would check your clock not theirs. You have no idea at exactly what time their system registers your entry to their zone.
Therefore by simple reasoning they should allow leeway of up to ten minutes for error.
Therefore by simple reasoning they should allow leeway of up to ten minutes for error.
Tallbutbuxomly said:
Oh I would also advise that if you over stay for no more than ten minutes and they send a loopy fine of say 60-80 quid ignore it. Its very subjective. Its easy to be up to ten minutes out compared to their system. Bear in mind when you drive in you would check your clock not theirs. You have no idea at exactly what time their system registers your entry to their zone.
Therefore by simple reasoning they should allow leeway of up to ten minutes for error.
If they record you 10 mins late in they'll record you 10 mins late out.Therefore by simple reasoning they should allow leeway of up to ten minutes for error.
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
Can you quote me the SRA number for peppipoo? Their professional indemnity insurance details? Their Compliance Officer?Nope, of course.
10 Pence Short said:
I wish people would stop spouting on about how PPCs won't be able to establish their losses,
A PPC thread would not be complete without your input. In fact, I only now read the threads to ensure that you have responded.
Sometimes, it is the simple things that make this world a better place.
herewego said:
Tallbutbuxomly said:
Oh I would also advise that if you over stay for no more than ten minutes and they send a loopy fine of say 60-80 quid ignore it. Its very subjective. Its easy to be up to ten minutes out compared to their system. Bear in mind when you drive in you would check your clock not theirs. You have no idea at exactly what time their system registers your entry to their zone.
Therefore by simple reasoning they should allow leeway of up to ten minutes for error.
If they record you 10 mins late in they'll record you 10 mins late out.Therefore by simple reasoning they should allow leeway of up to ten minutes for error.
?? What are you on about? How can you the driver be ten minutes late getting into the carpark?You drive in the system sees you and logs the time. You drive out it logs the time and works out the difference.
You cannot be sure what time their system actually logged your car until you get the ticket.
Tallbutbuxomly said:
herewego said:
Tallbutbuxomly said:
Oh I would also advise that if you over stay for no more than ten minutes and they send a loopy fine of say 60-80 quid ignore it. Its very subjective. Its easy to be up to ten minutes out compared to their system. Bear in mind when you drive in you would check your clock not theirs. You have no idea at exactly what time their system registers your entry to their zone.
Therefore by simple reasoning they should allow leeway of up to ten minutes for error.
If they record you 10 mins late in they'll record you 10 mins late out.Therefore by simple reasoning they should allow leeway of up to ten minutes for error.
?? What are you on about? How can you the driver be ten minutes late getting into the carpark?You drive in the system sees you and logs the time. You drive out it logs the time and works out the difference.
You cannot be sure what time their system actually logged your car until you get the ticket.
10ps,
What have you got against pepipoo, money saving expert, and all the other people who willingly give their time free to counter such bad practices?
Or or you one of them?
I try not to be involved with parkin probs, but if i should ever be 'contacted' by on of these firms who charge exhorbitant fees, then i shall ask pepipoo for advice.AND tell others to do the same. It is up to the person concerned whether he looks at the situation and get them to help or forks out up to 120gbp
What have you got against pepipoo, money saving expert, and all the other people who willingly give their time free to counter such bad practices?
Or or you one of them?
I try not to be involved with parkin probs, but if i should ever be 'contacted' by on of these firms who charge exhorbitant fees, then i shall ask pepipoo for advice.AND tell others to do the same. It is up to the person concerned whether he looks at the situation and get them to help or forks out up to 120gbp
chris1972 said:
... the clue is in the title of the letter. it is a Parking Charge 'Notice'... not a summons or demand.
Wrong clue. The right one is the "Parking" word.Penalty Charge Notices are also not summons, but they are demands and are enforceable through the criminal courts.
Streaky
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.
silverfoxcc said:
10ps,
What have you got against pepipoo, money saving expert, and all the other people who willingly give their time free to counter such bad practices?
Or or you one of them?
I try not to be involved with parkin probs, but if i should ever be 'contacted' by on of these firms who charge exhorbitant fees, then i shall ask pepipoo for advice.AND tell others to do the same. It is up to the person concerned whether he looks at the situation and get them to help or forks out up to 120gbp
I await his denial, but for what it's worth I don't think he is.What have you got against pepipoo, money saving expert, and all the other people who willingly give their time free to counter such bad practices?
Or or you one of them?
I try not to be involved with parkin probs, but if i should ever be 'contacted' by on of these firms who charge exhorbitant fees, then i shall ask pepipoo for advice.AND tell others to do the same. It is up to the person concerned whether he looks at the situation and get them to help or forks out up to 120gbp
I have no issue with his stance that landowners have the right to control parking on their property. My issue is with the disreputable conduct of many PPCs (e.g. failure to comply with the BPA CoP and/or fully with the requirements of PoFA, and in one landmark case going so far as putting a false Statement of Truth before a District Judge - a grave error which he was astute enough to spot). This is in no way helped by the complete disinterest by many landowners in dealing with these shoddy practices. Washing their hands of any responsibility is not only morally repugnant but leaves them open to sanction as this case demonstrates. It is a pity it does not receive the prominence it deserves.
I can only attribute his bland acceptance of the way the private parking industry operates down to something TPTB put in his tea some time ago..
streaky said:
Wrong clue. The right one is the "Parking" word.
Penalty Charge Notices are also not summons, but they are demands and are enforceable through the criminal courts.
Streaky
Get a life Adolf...Penalty Charge Notices are also not summons, but they are demands and are enforceable through the criminal courts.
Streaky
Anything is 'potentially' enforceable through a court. The clue IS in the title. It is a notice, sent through the standard mail by a private company contracted to the landowner. Not a police FPN, which constitutes an absolute offence.
10 Pence Short said:
Steff1965 said:
When did that happen?
If your defence is that you weren't the driver and it reaches court, the court (either on its own accord or a question from the other side) is perfectly entitled to ask you if you were the driver. If you refuse to answer it's contempt of court and if you lie it's either perjury or perverting the course of justice.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
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.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff