[Misc] Parking Eye- Penalty Notice. A Rant.

[sully]

I am in the midst of a dispute with Parking eye.

I was at a conference in a hotel in Bournemouth and was told to where to park by a receptionist and that as I was attending the conference I would not have to pay. A notice on the Reception desk confirmed this. A month later I received a demand for payment of a fine from Parking eye. I told them (by letter and email) of the circumstances but this so called 'appeal' was rejected. I have refused to pay and regular letters threatening increasing fines, payment of their legal costs and court action have followed. For a while I responded to each one in writing but I now throw their letters in the bin. This was two years ago and whilst I haven't heard from them for a couple of months, I have no doubt their computer will throw out another threatening letter soon.

I am fully prepared to go to court and counter sue for harassment. I don't know why this has particularly got under my skin but it has and because I am perhaps young enough to not feel intimidated and I have adequate means to fight a court case, I will do so. However I suspect it will never happen because Parking Eye's tactic is to worry people into paying rather than risk court action.

If there is a clear cut case they might take it further and will no doubt win. However if there is any doubt (and there clearly is in your case) I do not believe they will. However it is profitable for them to send out continuous letters threatening action because many people will pay either out of fear or just to make the subject 'go away'.

So my advice from my own experience is to just ignore them and eventually they will give up. They are bullies operating on the very edge of the law but they will, like all bullies, eventually turn their attention to the easier targets (which is morally wrong again as the 'easier targets' are likely to be the elderly) and give up on those that stand up to them.

I would recommend filing the letters rather than throwing them away!

 

[LadySeagull]

I do. These are the ****ers who employ the parking nazis. We have it here in Faversham. Calling [MENTION=18265]LadySeagull[/MENTION]

I agree.

The worst offenders are GP surgeries and Hospitals who should know the Equality Act inside out. But they still inflict a nasty, aggressive and litigious parking firm on people who are are legally allowed more time for the their money when parked, under the statutory duties of a service provider (Hospital and Parking firm, both liable).

Another example of inappropriate parking firms are those at residential car parks.

Far, far too often I have to step in to help people who are pursued to court for four figure sums for parking in their own space. I write defences - and would happily attend a local court to speak for someone if scared (although they must attend too) - and see almost no cases lost, and no risk of a CCJ as long as you don't ignore court deadlines. People think (wrongly) there's a risk of huge fees etc.

And the saddest thing is, most victims pay.

The current situation in recent years is MUCH worse than clamping ever was. I used to advise people then as well (pre-2012) and clamping was aggressive but a one-off 'fee'. These court cases are often for multiple unfair PCNs, to honest drivers, and the parking firms then add fake damages on top and/or wreck people's credit ratings by deliberately serving claims on an old address in secret.

 

[Triggaaar]

I think you have a point. I should re-think. The receptionist, who was most apologetic and helpful, did say they have had a number of complaints.

Go and find her and punch her in the face.

 

[LadySeagull]

However I suspect it will never happen because Parking Eye's tactic is to worry people into paying rather than risk court action.

So my advice from my own experience is to just ignore them and eventually they will give up

Not true.

You need to get the Hotel CEO or local Manager, to cancel this or you will get a claim soon.

ParkingEye are horrendously litigious and win most cases.

 

[BensGrandad]

Not true.

You need to get the Hotel CEO or local Manager, to cancel this or you will get a claim soon.

ParkingEye are horrendously litigious and win most cases.

As the recent case of the chap who overslept the permitted 2 hours, in a motorway services after stopping because he was tired shows.

 

[LadySeagull]

He was clueless and must have forgotten how to Google & find parking ticket fighting forums...his case was winnable.

Could have had it cancelled by the Services, had he asked first. Complaining to the landowner is always the very first thing to do.

But once at court all he needed was a decent defence which can be got for free on MSE or pepipoo forums (never, ever, ever pay any company for this).

This is how a defence worked re the same facts, albeit the 'victim' had an advantage!

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/aug/26/parking-eye-takes-on-top-barrister-85-fine

Very winnable if you know what to say, but almost always cancellable by the landowner which is so much easier.

 

[jasetheace]

And picking up on TOW's point above

I don't know (and I'm certainly not justifying these companies), but could it be that the current law is insufficient for a well behaved parking enforcement company to profitably operate ?

As far as I am aware, if you dispute a penalty notice (and I've done it myself) they eventually have to take you to court to get payment and this is unprofitable ? That may be one of the reasons they pump out as many notices as possible at every opportunity, because it's not possible to generate an honest number profitably and so it just turns into a numbers game.

Ironically, could it be that the laws need to become more stringent in order for a 'reasonable' company to operate

Correct. Actual payment rates can be as low as 35-40% within statutory time-frames, rising to between about 50-60% after debt recovery cycles and onward to court proceedings. Not the high margins that some might perceive.

 

[LadySeagull]

Correct. Actual payment rates can be as low as 35-40% within statutory time-frames, rising to between about 50-60% after debt recovery cycles and onward to court proceedings. Not the high margins that some might perceive.

How do you know?

Parking firms are all scammers and not a legitimate job to have, I hope you are not...?

Jeez - please no - not a local ex-clamper scumbag like UKCPM?

 

[Eeyore]

I agree.

The worst offenders are GP surgeries and Hospitals who should know the Equality Act inside out. But they still inflict a nasty, aggressive and litigious parking firm on people who are are legally allowed more time for the their money when parked, under the statutory duties of a service provider (Hospital and Parking firm, both liable).

Another example of inappropriate parking firms are those at residential car parks.

Far, far too often I have to step in to help people who are pursued to court for four figure sums for parking in their own space. I write defences - and would happily attend a local court to speak for someone if scared (although they must attend too) - and see almost no cases lost, and no risk of a CCJ as long as you don't ignore court deadlines. People think (wrongly) there's a risk of huge fees etc.

And the saddest thing is, most victims pay.

The current situation in recent years is MUCH worse than clamping ever was. I used to advise people then as well (pre-2012) and clamping was aggressive but a one-off 'fee'. These court cases are often for multiple unfair PCNs, to honest drivers, and the parking firms then add fake damages on top and/or wreck people's credit ratings by deliberately serving claims on an old address in secret.

Who do the car parking firm contact for the address in the first place ?

 

[BensGrandad]

Who do the car parking firm contact for the address in the first place ?

I thought they got the owner's name from DVLA but could be wrong.

 

[LadySeagull]

You mean the keeper's address?

They buy registered keeper data from the DVLA for £2.50 a pop, causing the DVLA to make a loss.

 

[Eeyore]

You mean the keeper's address?

They buy registered keeper data from the DVLA for £2.50 a pop, causing the DVLA to make a loss.

Okay.

The letter I received said they had written to a previous address and they could not have reasonably known that I had moved.

The charge was issued for parking on April 1st.

I informed the DVLA of my address change in early February and they updated my address on February 6th.

What's their game ?

The charge has been cancelled but I am not having this for other's sake.

 

[LadySeagull]

I informed the DVLA of my address change on were informed of my address change in early February and updated my address on February 6th.

And let me guess (sorry if I get this wrong).

Either:

(a) You updated your driving licence only and not the V5C for the car, for which there is a real £1000 fine for not changing the address.

or

(b) your car is a lease/company or hire car and ParkingEye got the data from the Fleet Management and it was an old address?

You need to move quickly to get the landowner to cancel this sharpish. I am happy to help you with a defence or in court if you are local, but much easier to cancel it, especially as P/Eye win cases as they throw money at them and have the Supreme Court decision they won in 2015, to wave around.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I agree.

The worst offenders are GP surgeries and Hospitals who should know the Equality Act inside out. But they still inflict a nasty, aggressive and litigious parking firm on people who are are legally allowed more time for the their money when parked, under the statutory duties of a service provider (Hospital and Parking firm, both liable).

Another example of inappropriate parking firms are those at residential car parks.

Far, far too often I have to step in to help people who are pursued to court for four figure sums for parking in their own space. I write defences - and would happily attend a local court to speak for someone if scared (although they must attend too) - and see almost no cases lost, and no risk of a CCJ as long as you don't ignore court deadlines. People think (wrongly) there's a risk of huge fees etc.

And the saddest thing is, most victims pay.

The current situation in recent years is MUCH worse than clamping ever was. I used to advise people then as well (pre-2012) and clamping was aggressive but a one-off 'fee'. These court cases are often for multiple unfair PCNs, to honest drivers, and the parking firms then add fake damages on top and/or wreck people's credit ratings by deliberately serving claims on an old address in secret.

We took your excellent advice when Mrs T got done by a residential operative with no clear sinage when Mrs T got lost in the docklands and stopped to ask for directions. Very pleased to say these people melted away after we sent our reply. Now, over a year later, we are hopeful the issue has gone for good. Many thanks!

 

[LadySeagull]

No problem, this is why I do this in my spare time. An extreme form of scam baiting, to turn up in court (or at least write the appeal or defence) and get them humiliated.

I once wrote an appeal to a company re a Supermarket car park, where the first letter of all the lines of the appeal spelt out the word 'TWATS' in bold capitals. They cancelled.

 

[LIKE]

No problem, this is why I do this in my spare time. An extreme form of scam baiting, to turn up in court (or at least write the appeal or defence) and get them humiliated.

I once wrote an appeal to a company re a Supermarket car park, where the first letter of all the lines of the appeal spelt out the word 'TWATS' in bold capitals. They cancelled.

LIKE.

 

[LadySeagull]

Quote Originally Posted by jasetheace
Correct. Actual payment rates can be as low as 35-40% within statutory time-frames, rising to between about 50-60% after debt recovery cycles and onward to court proceedings. Not the high margins that some might perceive.

How do you know?

Parking firms are all scammers and not a legitimate job to have, I hope you are not...?

Jeez - please no - not a local ex-clamper scumbag like UKCPM?

Your silence spoke volumes, [MENTION=19067]jasetheace[/MENTION] - so I went looking.

I conclude that you do *work* for a parking firm.

Or you work in Haywards Heath at BPA towers with the fair-minded Steve C and Gemma D and the rest of them who (apart from those two named staff) all come across as fob off merchants as soon as a poor victim complains, and hit the ''the operator has not breached our Code'' button.

I conclude you must be in the BPA or a BPA member firm, as you say you got the POPLA Annual report on the day it was issued, and you pontificate completely wrongly, warning about people like me (correctly) saying forums have a 99% win rate at POPLA, just because the overall figures are lower.

Of course they are lower! Non-forum savvy victims have NO IDEA they are dealing with a scammer, you know that. They even think AOS members have a Customer Service ethic and so, thinking they actually have a 'legit' parking fine, the poor motorists try weak appeals and phone calls crying about what the likes of any typical git AOS member does to people.

Those same people write doomed POPLA appeals and lose, dragging the stats down. People like me get the stats up but not enough victims find us.

Unbelievable that anyone actually thinks that is a job, absolute scam industry, how on earth do people look themselves in the mirror when extorting money that way?

https://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/show...nual-Report)&p=8703902&highlight=#post8703902

Dear All

I have watched with interest these past couple of years the debates on this forum relating to Parking Enforcement on private land.
Interestingly today, POPLA, the independent arbitration service for parking on private land have published their annual report and I thought I would share it with you below;

http://popla.co.uk/docs/default-sour...8.pdf?sfvrsn=0

I do not have the time for an essay but I would like to share my initial and main thoughts and interpretations.

1. The percentage of appeals sent to POPLA that go uncontested by the operator (Withdrawn) is unacceptable, particularly among the big players in that sector. Routinely, the withdrawal rate for the bigger players is between the 20% mark (the point at which it becomes questionable) up to 54% for the worst performing operator. The only conclusion that the BPA (British Parking Association) can make is that the overall figure of 27% is NOT GOOD ENOUGH. They are either playing a numbers game or the on the ground car park experience and back office functions are not fit for purpose both of which inevitably lead to a high withdrawal percentage.

2. In any event, withdrawal rates also artificially inflate success rates for those appeals that are fully assessed. However, shamefully this is not always the case and the worst performing of the big operators manages to ensure that it either withdraws or loses 65% of all appeals referred to POPLA. If I were seeking managed enforcement for my private land, I would be looking for an operator who is confident enough to keep withdrawals low and yet still maintains a success rate for fully assessed appeals at or above the 60% mark.

3. Lastly however and this is an aside to the likes of Lady Seagull the overall position indicates that of all appeals referred to POPLA, 57% are won by the operators. So, for those that claim to have a 100% win rate against operators through their forum advice and appeals templates, there is a clear disconnect between their claims and reality.

My point here is Buyer Beware.

Don’t get yourself an unnecessary CCJ through naively following everything you are told online. Follow the appeals procedures (particularly POPLA), speak to the operator, speak to the BPA or IPC and where an operator disgracefully has no Customer Service Function (and there are some that literally do not have any) speak to the landowner direct. You have calm, considered options (not driven by Agenda) open to you.

Summarising, it is clear that the BPA must work harder to hold accountable those that are not driven by values based practices. It is within their gift given that rather awkwardly, some of those big players hold positions of influence within the BPA structure itself. However, it is a two-way street. Landowners have the right to enforce responsible parking on their land and monetise it should they wish. Motorists have a responsibility to respect and adhere to those wishes.

If I'd seen that post from you at the time I'd have called you out on the above propaganda then.

where an operator disgracefully has no Customer Service Function (and there are some that literally do not have any)

NONE of them do. what makes you say parking firms have any consumer customers? You don't.

I agree about speaking to the landowner, it's the first thing everyone is told to do on parking forums. Complain to the retailer, hotel or whatever and ultimately, enough complaints will get the PPC kicked out.

Landowners have the right to enforce responsible parking on their land and monetise it should they wish. Motorists have a responsibility to respect and adhere to those wishes.

Agreed on that too.

In what way is letting a scum parking firm harvest people's personal data, penalise their genuine customers and disabled people (after all, who cares, they are not your customers, never mind the Equality Act) at £100 a visit, where the landowner receives either nothing or a paltry sum and loses the customer forever, ''monetising'' the car park, except in BPA la-la land?

Kerching !!! Oh yes, it's ''monetising'' land for the parking firms alright but it's not for the landowners.

I would be happy if LANDOWNERS (retailers, Hospitals, hotels, cinemas and the like) put some signs up with their own land use rules because they wouldn't drag disabled and vulnerable people to court or fine their own customers, and would cancel PCNs left right & centre when they realised the damage this does.

The entire industry should be banned and the *employees* if they call themselves that, will need to get a real job at last and do something useful for Society. As you say - ''there is a clear disconnect between their claims and reality. My point here is Buyer Beware.''

Actual payment rates can be as low as 35-40% within statutory time-frames, rising to between about 50-60% after debt recovery cycles and onward to court proceedings. Not the high margins that some might perceive.

Aww, what a shame for you, but my heart bleeds for the victims who are daft enough to pay.

''Statutory time frames'' to pay a scam parking charge? There's no such thing, and parking firms should be barred from litigation without seeking permission from the courts on a case by case basis, because of the damage done to people's peace of mind and credit ratings for meritless claims.

The whole think stinks and is beyond propping up with excuses or BS about PPCs acting 'in the interests of landowners'. Rubbish.

 

[SWL-Seagull]

Long time lurker - first time poster.

I received one of these when parking in a CHURCH car park on a bank holiday when the sign clearly said no ticket required on bank holidays. Immediately appealed and also emailed the church to highlight the sharp practice. TBF the church responded straightaway to say they had intervened and my ticket would be cancelled.

So my advice would be to ALWAYS involve the owner of the car park if you genuinely believe the ticket is wrong as well as appealing directly.

But was left with sense that the parking company knew exactly what it was doing and for every X tickets wrongfully given only a few would bother to challenge.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Chicken Run]

Your silence spoke volumes, [MENTION=19067]jasetheace[/MENTION] - so I went looking.

I conclude that you do *work* for a parking firm.

Or you work in Haywards Heath at BPA towers with the fair-minded Steve C and Gemma D and the rest of them who (apart from those two named staff) all come across as fob off merchants as soon as a poor victim complains, and hit the ''the operator has not breached our Code'' button.

I conclude you must be in the BPA or a BPA member firm, as you say you got the POPLA Annual report on the day it was issued, and you pontificate completely wrongly, warning about people like me (correctly) saying forums have a 99% win rate at POPLA, just because the overall figures are lower.

Of course they are lower! Non-forum savvy victims have NO IDEA they are dealing with a scammer, you know that. They even think AOS members have a Customer Service ethic and so, thinking they actually have a 'legit' parking fine, the poor motorists try weak appeals and phone calls crying about what the likes of any typical git AOS member does to people.

Those same people write doomed POPLA appeals and lose, dragging the stats down. People like me get the stats up but not enough victims find us.

Unbelievable that anyone actually thinks that is a job, absolute scam industry, how on earth do people look themselves in the mirror when extorting money that way?

https://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/show...nual-Report)&p=8703902&highlight=#post8703902



If I'd seen that post from you at the time I'd have called you out on the above propaganda then.


NONE of them do. what makes you say parking firms have any consumer customers? You don't.

I agree about speaking to the landowner, it's the first thing everyone is told to do on parking forums. Complain to the retailer, hotel or whatever and ultimately, enough complaints will get the PPC kicked out.

Agreed on that too.

In what way is letting a scum parking firm harvest people's personal data, penalise their genuine customers and disabled people (after all, who cares, they are not your customers, never mind the Equality Act) at £100 a visit, where the landowner receives either nothing or a paltry sum and loses the customer forever, ''monetising'' the car park, except in BPA la-la land?

Kerching !!! Oh yes, it's ''monetising'' land for the parking firms alright but it's not for the landowners.

I would be happy if LANDOWNERS (retailers, Hospitals, hotels, cinemas and the like) put some signs up with their own land use rules because they wouldn't drag disabled and vulnerable people to court or fine their own customers, and would cancel PCNs left right & centre when they realised the damage this does.

The entire industry should be banned and the *employees* if they call themselves that, will need to get a real job at last and do something useful for Society. As you say - ''there is a clear disconnect between their claims and reality. My point here is Buyer Beware.''

Aww, what a shame for you, but my heart bleeds for the victims who are daft enough to pay.

''Statutory time frames'' to pay a scam parking charge? There's no such thing, and parking firms should be barred from litigation without seeking permission from the courts on a case by case basis, because of the damage done to people's peace of mind and credit ratings for meritless claims.

The whole think stinks and is beyond propping up with excuses or BS about PPCs acting 'in the interests of landowners'. Rubbish.

LS I have a lot of time for you as a poster and the work you do but could I just ask what companies who pay and provide legitimate parking for their staff are supposed to do when their spaces are occupied by chancers who have no right to park there?

I once lived in a flat in BHill with an off road parking space directly in front and returned home at 9pm having worked late to find a car in the space, I blocked it in and sure enough a couple returned about an hour later from ASK. I challenged them and they claimed naively not to know it was a private space, there is a big sign btw in front saying private parking.

Apart from the frustration they caused I would have no problem with them suffering at the hands of one of these parking companies.

Thoughts?

 

[shoreham seagull 1973]

Just wondering if the surgery own the land or is it public land. Not sure if Parking eye would be able to fine someone if they park on public land as surely this would be down to the council parking wardens to monitor.
Had a threat from the parking enforcement plebs that do Mill View and Hove Poly clinic a few weeks back stating that it was private property. However, as it is a NHS site owned by the Govt / Council are they within their rights to target parkers. To end matters i started to phorograph his vehicle which was parked in a disabled bay and he soon dissapeared.