Bradfield Road car park (Hillsborough) - charges and "fines"

[Xt500 10]

I did get a court date in Northampton....why would i make this up??

thrown now anyway ...was months ago

 

Id keep the door locked

 

---------- Post added 31-01-2014 at 19:24 ----------

 

I have posted for a long time on PPP, and give advice on there everyday, every case is different, but Parking eye are issuing claims in their thousands, If the person in questions log on to PP and asks for help they will get told they will need to defend the claim,and get the guide.

 

Rather then expecting people on PPP to spoon feed someone every step of the way

 

I help behing the scenes, help people prepare court defences, popla appeals.

People need to do the work themselves. We have guys up and down the country helping people equip themselves and the results are paying of

 

IF you ask on money saving expert you will also be advised to do the same thing, Even CAG now agree its a good thing and supports it.

 

At the end of the day any money made is ploughed back in and helps more people through better defences packs.

 

Of course if you expect people to be spon fed.

 

---------- Post added 31-01-2014 at 17:21 ----------

 

 

Your wrong

 

You dont get a court date from Northampton. What you will now get is a default judgement which you will have no come back

 

When did you get the claim pack?

 

whoopy doo

[ducatiboy 10]

personally I think kirkbylad is very well informed on this subject. I have taken his advice and placed appeal with POPLA today with the main parts of the appeal being NO CONTRACT AND GPEOL. Its very obvious that these are the main ones for getting an appeal upheld. Thanks kirkbylad I owe you one

[kirkbylad 10]

Not a problem Ducatiboy, just spread the word its a shame that so many people just pay up

[nikki-red 307]

Without going into the long and boring details, I had an invoice from Parking Eye, left it far too late and ended up with a Sheffield County Court date.

After a few conversations and a lot of help from kirkbylad Ive been informed today that the 'fine' has now been cancelled, and there will be no further action.

 

All I can say is if you are going through anything involving a private parking company, listen to kirkbylads advice, he really does know what hes talking about.

Edited February 4, 2014 by nikki-red

[warday 10]

On Bradfield Road in the car park behind the shops and Yorkshire Bank.

 

I got a parking fine from G24 for an overstay of 6 minutes this was at the under cround car park of B&M ex (co-op).

[kirkbylad 10]

I got a parking fine from G24 for an overstay of 6 minutes this was at the under cround car park of B&M ex (co-op).

 

check MSE on what you need to do

 

---------- Post added 04-02-2014 at 13:57 ----------

 

Without going into the long and boring details, I had an invoice from Parking Eye, left it far too late and ended up with a Sheffield County Court date.

After a few conversations and a lot of help from kirkbylad Ive been informed today that the 'fine' has now been cancelled, and there will be no further action.

 

All I can say is if you are going through anything involving a private parking company, listen to kirbylads advice, he really does know what hes talking about.

 

Was a pleasure to help

 

At the end of the day the company in question (Not Parking eye) Didnt want to be seen to be taking its customer to court, so i laid it on the line and they got the claim with Parking eye discontinued

[warday 10]

Not a problem Ducatiboy, just spread the word its a shame that so many people just pay up

what's a MSE.

[kirkbylad 10]

what's a MSE.

 

Moneysavinexpert forum

[ducatiboy 10]

Money saving expert is really good it has a thread on there with lists of appeals that have gone to POPLA and shows whether they have been allowed or refused. I have read a lot of them. The one or 2 cases that were refused were due to people parking in disabled bays and received a penalty for this. The majority of the appeals that were allowed were always down to the charge not being a genuine pre estimate of loss eg it didnt cost the company £85 for you to drive into their carpark or overstay by ten minutes or so there have been court cases where the ANPR system has been questioned and the case thrown out as the parking company cant prove their calibration synchronization etc and have not defined their grace periods(the time it takes you to read the terms and conditions) section13 BPA code of practice. before you decide NOT to park and drive out. As I understand the other part is to prove that the charge is punitive.It is illegal to punish you financially for the alleged offence. Finally you ask them to supply the contract between them and the land owner. It appears they seldom do as there will be clauses in there that will show a lot of other information that they don't want you to know! Kirkbylad is that right? I have had lots of help from kirkbylad on this one. DONT JUST PAY UP THE PARKING FIRMS ARE CON MEN!!!!! Feel free to correct me kirkbylad!!

[NightFlight 10]

So, after a few nervous moments after getting an email notification from PoPLA on my phone screen...

 

 

Success!

 

05 February 2014

 

Reference 6063223048

 

always quote in any communication with POPLA

(Appellant)

-v-

ParkingEye Ltd (Operator)

 

The Operator issued parking charge notice number 351004/197852

arising out of a presence on private land, of a vehicle with registration mark *******.

 

The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.

The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has determined that the appeal be allowed.

 

The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.

 

The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.

 

 

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

It is the Appellant’s case that the parking charge notice was issued incorrectly.

 

The Operator has not produced a copy of the parking charge notice, nor any evidence to show a breach of the conditions of parking occurred, nor any evidence that shows what the conditions of parking, in fact, were.

 

Accordingly I have no option but to allow the appeal.

 

Chris A******

Assessor

 

 

Though I'm not really sure my appeal was that the parking charge notice was issued incorrectly, (see my original appeal letter below) however it seems that PE have decided to capitulate rather than contest and add further weight behind the no GPEoL argument that was the thrust of my appeal.

 

Feel free to appeal however you want, but this method has been shown, (again) to work.

 

 

Appeal to PoPLA letter

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

I write as the Registered Keeper to appeal the "Parking Charge" being sought by ParkingEye, their reference ****, POPLA reference **** having previously appealed to ParkingEye directly and been rejected.

 

1. I believe that ParkingEye has insufficient capacity over the land to offer a contract. This was dismissed initially by ParkingEye by way of a list of generic "FAQ" responses (see appeal rejection letter). To date ParkingEye has provided no evidence to support their claimed authority to engage in any contracting with 3rd parties regarding use of the land. It is thus requested that a full contract is provided by ParkingEye showing clearly that they have the capacity to enter into contracts.

Further, any redaction of sections of this contract, particularly of a section 22 indicating that the contract between the landholder and ParkingEye cannot be seen in any way shape or form to create an agency agreement will indicate clearly that ParkingEye has no capacity to offer contracts.

 

Furthermore

 

2. I understand that this claim is for breach of a contract between the driver and ParkingEye, thus a valid contract would need to have been offered by ParkingEye (presumably through notices) and entered into by the driver. However, the signage at the car park is insufficient to demarcate the boundary between the free to use and permit only sections of the car park. The signage within the permit only section is, at a glance when spending suitable time looking out for moving vehicles and pedestrians, visually very similar to the "2 hours max stay" sign. There is no differentiation between the free to park area bays and the permit only bays, there is no line on the road to clearly separate the two sections, the road surface is the same, there is no "permit holders only" lettering on the road surface or in the bays themselves which wo6uld serve to clarify the restricted sections.

It is thus completely unreasonable that the driver would have known what contract to enter into, and whether any of the purported terms would have applied. Thus, ParkingEye will have failed to clearly and reasonably provide sufficient notice to offer any contract for parking.

 

3. ParkingEye has asserted, in their appeal rejection letter, that they consider the parking charge to have been levied for "breach of contract". This would be further borne out by their signage at the car park (see attached image) which states that "if you fail to comply...". As such, the charge needs to be reflective of a Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss. ParkingEye's rejection letter details what it considers to be their "loss" in relation to this incident. ParkingEye, as it agrees, exists as a business to monitor car parking and make charges to users who breach whatever contract they claim is in place. As such, the erection of signage, installation, monitoring, maintenance of CCTV systems, fees paid to the ICO, DVLA, BPA, stationary and postage costs are costs associated in running their business, and would have been incurred by ParkingEye whether the alleged parking infringement had occurred or not. ParkingEye have provided no evidence to suggest or quantify what loss they have incurred directly as a result of the alleged contract breach.

Therefore, the parking charge requested cannot be seen to be a genuine pre estimate of loss for the alleged breach of contract. This charge is thus clearly a nonenforceable penalty and thus void.

ParkingEye also suggest that the claimed amount is "commercially justified" however in the case law that ParkingEye will provide as proof of this claim it has been clearly stated that this "third category" can only exist for charges whose main intention is NOT to deter breach of the contract. ParkingEye however has clearly shown that their sole reason for levying the claimed charge is to deter breach of the (alleged) contract. Thus, the claimed charge is specifically excluded from this "commercially justified" category.

 

Finally, it should be noted that in either case the claimed charge would need to comply with the requirement of reasonableness as per s.10 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, as well as with the requirement of fairness and good faith as per reg.5 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. It is denied that the claimed charge satisfies those statutory requirements and ParkingEye will thus be under strict prove to provide their reasoning for doing so.

 

Kind Regards

[ducatiboy 10]

Brilliant news Nightflight. That is very similar to my appeal only yours is worded much better! Congratulations. I hope i get the same outcome .....

[meksta 10]

ok so ive got a ticket from parking eye for the hilsborough car park. i have up until close of play today to pay the £50. what do you suggest i do guys???