AIBU to ignore 'Parking Charge Notice' from Parking Eye

[ComposHat]

Just before Christmas I was travelling from England to Scotland when we stopped at a service station for a break at a service station just over the border just before midnight.

When we returned to the car after a loo break and a cup of coffee, the car resolutely failed to start. After a call to the AA we were told that it would be a three hour wait until a patrol would get back to me.

Anyway the patrolman showed up after about three hours and got me us underway again, colder, grumpier but none the worse for wear.

All well and good, until I got a letter from a company called 'Parking Eye' trying to get me to pay £100 quid for overstaying the two hour free parking period (in a deserted car park at midnight in a broken down car) complete with two blurry pictures of my car's number plate. The driver (who may or may not have been me ;-) ) isn't visible in their cruddy shots.

Having scanned a few forums, the consensus seems to be to ignore these money grabbing chancers and deposit the letters they send straight into the dustbin. However I am by nature quite nervy, so am a bit worried about the consequences, equally I don't have a spare £100 lying around to hand over to these cowboys.

Has anyone had any experience in dealing with 'Parking Eye' or other Private Parking contractors and what did you do? Any help greatly appreciated.

[ravenAK]

Oh they can ticket it all they like, with the landowner's permission. But their tickets are speculative invoices, NOT legally enforceable penalty notices. Their business relies on people not knowing this.

They could charge you £x/hour for parking & that would be fine.

What they can't do is successfully argue in court that they are entitled to 'fine' you £xxxxxxxxxxxxxx for over-staying.

[Wallison]

So you say, mayorquimby, but a poster upthread said that she did get taken to court by them and that the court didn't throw out the question of barrister's fees. It's quite normal for a big organisation to employ barristers or solicitors - look at local authorities - if you get fined by them there are legal costs involved and the courts just rubber-stamp them; it's standard.

Btw I am not saying that these organisations are in any way as legitimate as LAs. I've simply set out the position under contract law, because there has been a lot of well-meaning but misleading guff posted so far.

[TandB]

Ignore. Ignore. Ignore.

And then ignore some more!

[mercibucket]

if you want to cost them another 30 quid then appeal it via the appeal agency first. you appeal for free, they have to pay. you don't have to abide by the decision and can revert to ignoring afterwards

[PRBunny]

I think, Wallison you are muddying the waters deliberately.

The over-whelming advice on here and MSE is to ignore the so-called tickets.

As you and I are not going to see eye-to-eye about this issue, I am going to bow out because I have better things to do. I am sure that other posters can take up the cudgel.

Perhaps it's better put that Private Parking Companies rarely take people to court. And as I am not going to pay the two tickets issued to my car parked on land that I own, perhaps i should take myself to court as I haven't created any contract with the private parking company as I haven't asked them to manage my freehold. Therefore the tickets are unenforceable

Thank you for setting out contract law. It was interesting to read.

[ravenAK]

But the poster in question blinked first, & agreed to pay the original 'invoice' once the company offered to settle in court. She didn't lose the case, & it would have been unprecedented for her to have costs awarded against her.

I'm not blaming her for choosing not to risk it, but there are a LOT of these letters sent out & I've yet to see evidence of any instance of the parking company having a result in court.

MSE is riddled with parking company employees being challenged to come up with an example of such a result, & not being able to.

[juniper904]

I was unlucky to get taken to court. It does seem that, for the majority of people, the letters come from the company and nothing more. I ignored until I had court summons. At that point I had to attend the court or I'd get an instant ccj.

I settled because I hadn't followed protocol (being a notice, I didn't realise that the witness statement referred to my own statement) and so the judge was pissed off with us both. I didn't know how she'd rule, and I'm looking for a mortgage, so couldn't risk a mark against my credit rating. Nor the £400+ fees if I lost.

I think I probably could have won, but I wussed out.

With regards to these companies posting on threads, I'm sure they do. Like I said earlier, the barrister had print outs of my conversations on Martin Lewis and peppido (a good website, incidentally. A very kind man there wrote my defence statement for me for no reason other than kindness).

With regards to the op, you have a far stronger case than I did. But if court summons come, do not ignore!

[ComposHat]

I thought you only got a CCJ if you refuse to pay the judgement handed down, rather than just losing the case?

How on earth did the parking company identify you from forum postings?

[Christo1]

I am a regular on MSE parking forum and this thread has been linked across forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4378033 , I would like to offer a little bit of advice from one of regular posters Coupon Mad, she's passionate about getting the truth out there about these companies, the same as myself. Please come and visit us if you'd like further advice on this subject. And please view the BBC Watchdog clips on youtube for unbiased look at private parking.

The registered keeper doesn't 'have to' do anything at all. These fake PCNs are as unenforceable as they ever were - it's just that these rogue firms are now able to aim their threatogams at the registered keeper if they are not informed who the driver was.

Big deal...the keeper can still make paper aeroplanes out of them as we always did, just as shown by Tim Cary, the expert Solicitor in the first Watchdog clip! And further advice in others

A SUMMARY:

As far as private parking tickets are concerned, for a vehicle where you or family are the registered keeper*:

Any fake PCN issued for an incident up until 30th Sept 2012 = IGNORE IT.

Any fake PCN issued for an incident from 1st October 2012 onwards:

• if you were parked in Scotland or NI = IGNORE IT.
  

• if your 'ticket' is from a firm who are NOT members of the BPA AOS = IGNORE IT. www.britishparking.co.uk/AOS-Members
  

• if your 'ticket' is from an AOS member in England/Wales, there are 2 choices:
  

a) IGNORE IT, as ever, playing snap with the threatograms that match our sticky thread 'PPC letter chains'
forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=2214803

or

b) Appeal it with help from MSE in how to word it, and insist on a referral to the POPLA appeals service if it's not cancelled. Costs the Private Parking Company £32 plus, costs you nothing, it's not binding on you but it is binding on the PPC. If you do not win your appeal then revert to ignore mode.

This option is for those who want to fight back, cost the Private Parking Company money and test the POPLA system whilst also getting their Private Parking Companies tactics scrutinised; start by reading threads about POPLA.
forums.moneysavingexpert.com/forumdisplay.php?f=163
Recent posters have had great success where their case is clearly a very unfair ticket (such as disabled overstay or slight overlap of a white line, etc.) by using email and wording it not as an appeal but a complaint, and copying in the retailer/landowner to that complaint.

Finally, if anyone gets any fake PCN anywhere in the UK in a retail, cinema, fast food or Supermarket car park then even if you choose to ignore the them then COMPLAIN IN WRITING to the CEO of the company on site if you were a customer. Do not appeal to them, complain about this protection racket against their paying ex-customers.

[PRBunny]

juniper

DH is asking can you post the link the pepidoo website please? He is also saying that in small claims court you don't pay for solicitors / barristers fees, you only pay the amount claimed for.

If you don't turn up to court to defend the claim then a default judgement is recorded. A CCJ is only issued if the court asks you to pay and you fail to pay within 28 days of the ruling.

I can totally understand why you didn't want to risk it though if you were going through a mortgage application!

And how would the parking company have print outs of your conversations unless you gave specific details that outted you IRL or told them what your username was?

[Christo1]

He means //www.pepipoo.com this is another fantastic website that fights for the motorists, if you have a council penalty charge notice they are the guys to visit. Forgive me for saying this but that poster doesn't seem to be legitimate, or not following advice.

[shesariver]

I got one through work, just ignored and ignore the threatening letters to, they are designed to put fear and panic into people. It pisses me off because I work in a health centre but occasionally have to go up to the main hospital for staff training. I am not entitled to a staff parking permit because I dont work there so have to park in the visitors spaces - which you only get 4 hours. All training courses tend to be 9-4 so always come back to a ticket. No flexibility. Just a money making (or not in my case) exercise for them.

[juniper904]

I'm not going to link, as I used usernames similar to my real life name. I am on Martin Lewis discussing all of this- they linked me to pepipoo.I made comments online about the specific company, and I guess they googled themselves. I think I got their backs up by fighting it. They spent hundreds of pounds to settle.

As it was, I settled but then the firm never asked me for the money so I haven't paid it. I'm no worse off than I was apart from the stress but technically I am in contempt of court. Another reason why I'm not going to link to my case!

Incidentally, I am legitimate. It seems like I am one of the few who they follow through with. They didn't win, but it was fairly scary on my part. As to whether or not I'd have to pay the barrister's fees- that's what he said. I didn't know either way.

I googled the company online yesterday and came up with a freedom of information act that showed how many bpa companies has taken people to court this year. It was quite high.

[juniper904]

Sorry, it's 2011. I'm not sure all these companies still operate www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?357884-The-truth-about-the-number-of-parking-cases-lodged-by-BPA-members-in-the-Small-Claims-court-in-2011

[Wallison]

I see from that list that Parking Eye took 5 people to court in that one year. Which maybe isn't a huge amount, but is more than the 'none ever' that someone claimed upthread.

[TandB]

I would strongly suspect that any people taken to court have done something over and above simply ignoring the invoice. It's not just a case of the company taking someone to court and being awarded the sum of money claimed - they have to actually prove that money is due to them, either through an agreement or due to damage or loss caused to them.

So if someone wrote to them saying "I know I owe this money but I want you to cancel it" or words to that effect, they might get somewhere. Alternatively, and this isn't my area of law at all, someone parking in a privately-owned parking space might be in a different situation, because they would have no right to be there and the owner could conceivably claim loss as a result of not having access to their own space.

I would be extremely surprised if the company had the stupidity to try to sue someone in the OP's position because there wouldn't be any losses to claim for.

[PRBunny]

I think the statistic that you and Juniper are looking for, from the same FOI that's been selectively quoted, is that around 1.8million private parking notices were issued in 2011.

Of these, 49 cases were taken to small claims court. Around half of this number were lost by the private parking companies.

The thread is pretty much dead. Op has decided to ignore any bits of paper she receives and the over-whelming advice from other MNers is to ignore anything in the future. There's zero point going round in circles or re-igniting a debate that is finished.

[mercibucket]

thanks christo1 for the links (am appealing my own atm)

out of the 49 cases that went to court, and half were 'won' by the oarking co, this could just be because the person never turned up, so even less of a scary statistic

[Wallison]

^ they have to actually prove that money is due to them, either through an agreement or due to damage or loss caused to them.

I've set out above how the contract works. It has nothing to do with ignoring or replying to letters. Indeed, juniper said that s/he ignored the letters and still ended up with a summons. It happens. It may be unlikely, but it does occur.

PRBunny - I agree (and said in my first post on this thread) that the OP would probably be ok ignoring the letters. But I thought it only fair to explain away some of the myths that have arisen around this matter (it's only a contract if you reply, it's illegal, it's unenforceable etc) which have been touted by others on here.

[TandB]

You've set out how it works in theory - the practice is quite another matter.

They still have to sue for something specific. If I enter into a contract with someone to dance the tango on my driveway and they default on it, no court in the land is going to award me damages. If I've sold tickets for the performance, then it's a slightly different matter.

In the situation that the OP describes there is no way the company could realistically prove loss arising from breach of contract. They'd be stupid to try it.

[TandB]

I would also imagine that the companies in question are fairly adept at identifying who is likely to crack if they decide they need to make an example of a few people in order to scare everyone else into settling their invoices.

If someone's been writing to them setting out all sorts of difficult personal circumstances then they are probably going to jump on that person with great glee if they find they need to take a couple of people to court.

[OhYouBadBadKitten]

I like your analogy kungfu

[juniper904]

I don't think I brought my court case on myself, Kungfupanda . I didn't respond to anything, or write anything online, until after the court summons had turned up. I think I was just unlucky.

I think the OP has a very, very different situation than mine, and I reckon the company is just chancing it. I don't think they have a leg to stand on.

My situation is real, though, and I'm not trying to scare people into paying the 'fine' because I don't think they should. I'm just pointing out that the companies do sometimes take it further, and if you receive court summons then you do have to take them seriously.

If I were ticketed again, then I don't know what I'd do. I would be worried about not paying because of my past case, but I would generally advise others not to pay... unless they receive court summons.

[mercibucket]

Was your summons to the small claims court juniper? Interested really.

[juniper904]

Yes, but the county court local to their company, not to me. I asked to have it transferred to my borough. I reckon that's why they sent a barrister rather than use their own 'legal team' (which is who signed the threatening letters).