Private Parking Ticket Megathread (Part 2)

[LeMaquis 10]

....my mates also got the same but she went down twice that week in the car!

 

She'll probably get a fine for that then.

[FloridaBird 10]

Hi

 

I wrote to parking eye asking them for a copy of their contract with the land owner and this is their reply to me:

 

(bit of background - I did not park, I turned around in their car park their camera saw us in a permit holders only area for 12 mins not parked in a parking bay. My defence when going to court is I was not parking).

 

Would you reply?

How would you reply?

 

 

Thank you for your further correspondence,

 

Please refer to our correspondence dated 12/05/2014, we believe that this answers all your queries.

 

Please also note ParkingEye would like to inform you that we believe it to be highly unreasonable that after ignoring our previous correspondence a request is made for the information highlighted in your previous correspondence to us. Should you have responded within the timescales outlined within our notices, answers could have been provided prior to this case being processed for further action.

 

ParkingEye can confirm that full authorisation is held to operate and enforce Parking Charges on site. ParkingEye only operates on sites that are situated on private land, are not council owned and that ParkingEye has written authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices on all of its sites from the landowner. ParkingEye are also audited on a yearly basis by the BPA to ensure that the relevant authority is held to operate on and manage our sites.

 

Please note that had an appeal been made, the opportunity to appeal to POPLA would have been granted. At this point it is likely that much of this information could have been provided. However, as no such appeal to POPLA was made, the information you are requesting could not be provided. We must make you aware that should legal proceedings be entered this will incur further costs, which will be sought from yourself.

 

To provide you with this information is a costly and time consuming procedure which is especially unreasonable considering that you have not entered into any dialogue with us until this point. As a result of this, ParkingEye do not feel that it is proportionate to supply a copy of our contract at this stage. Should you wish to be provided with this information, we recommend that you request this in your defence when court proceedings are issued. This will subsequently be provided at the request of the court.

 

Kind Regards,

ParkingEye Enforcement Team

[alchresearch 214]

Hi

 

I wrote to parking eye asking them for a copy of their contract with the land owner and this is their reply to me:

 

(bit of background - I did not park, I turned around in their car park their camera saw us in a permit holders only area for 12 mins not parked in a parking bay. My defence when going to court is I was not parking).

 

 

Twelve minutes to turn around?

[kirkbylad 10]

I hope your defence is stronger then that

 

When you do receive a court claim, i would ask the court to stay the claim pending the out come of the Court of Appeal hearing of Beavis Vs Parking Eye

[spotty dog 10]

I must add that I was parked in the car park for 229 minutes and the apparent parking available is 120. Don't think I really have a case

[kirkbylad 10]

I must add that I was parked in the car park for 229 minutes and the apparent parking available is 120. Don't think I really have a case

 

You are looking at it from the wrong angle

 

We deal with over 20 cases per day now on average and none of appeals are based on anything that happened on the day.

 

So yes you would still win if we were doing this for you, what happened etc etc, really has no relevance

[megalithic 10]

I must add that I was parked in the car park for 229 minutes and the apparent parking available is 120. Don't think I really have a case

 

4 minutes or 4 weeks, it makes not a jot of difference. You don't have to pay this, just appeal using one of the templates, or let Kirkby lad do it for you.

[Penistone999 10]

She'll probably get a fine for that then.

 

 

How many times, its NOT a fine , its a speculative invoice , not much more than a begging letter really. Private parking cowboys CANNOT fine anyone.

[spotty dog 10]

We have Kirkbylad on the case now!

[FloridaBird 10]

Twelve minutes to turn around?

 

It was busy we couldn't park and the car park was grid locked that why it took 12 mins. waiting for other cars to move out so we could leave.

 

---------- Post added 12-06-2014 at 10:46 ----------

 

I hope your defence is stronger then that

 

When you do receive a court claim, i would ask the court to stay the claim pending the out come of the Court of Appeal hearing of Beavis Vs Parking Eye

 

Is this in response to my post? If so I have googled Beavis Vs Parking and can't find anything I can understand.

 

But why is this defence of I did not park not strong enough.

1. They have no pictures of me being parked

2. I have photos of how busy the car park gets

3. I have photos of gridlocked it gets

4. I have photos of how you only have a single lane of traffic for getting in

and out of the carpark so on busy days you HAVE to go into the permit

holders area only to turn around to exit.

 

12 mins is not a long time when you are in a gridlocked car park

 

Gail

[geared 317]

Twelve minutes to turn around?

 

You've never seen my missus make a 3-point turn have you??

:hihi:

[carosio 186]

VCS's view of liquidated damages (quoting Spottydog's post):

 

"1.****In relation to your suggestion that your parking charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss we confirm we have obtained legal advice in this regard and have been advised that not only can our parking charges be justified on the basis that they are in line with the British Parking Association’s guidelines, and that they amount to a genuine pre-estimate of loss, but they are likely to amount to liquidated damages (where the issue of pre-estimate of loss is not relevant). This is because the Court’s position is that where the parties to a contract agree to fix the amount which is to be paid by way of damages in the event of a breach of contract - which is the basis of the contract detailed on our signage - a sum stipulated in this way (particularly in circumstances where there is difficulty in calculating a precise estimation) is classed as liquidated damages.**Either way, our parking charges are fully enforceable and no not amount to a “penalty”.**You should also be aware that in accordance with the case of Robophone Facilities v Blank the onus of proving that an amount claimed is a penalty, rather than liquidated damages, is upon you (as the party against whom the parking charge is claimed)"

 

 

Online advice from Shoesmith's Solicitors:

 

What is the problem with LDs?

 

As set out in the key judgment in this area - Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd. v New Garage & Motor Co. Ltd. (1915) - in order for an LD cause to be enforceable (rather than being a penalty), the sum payable upon breach must be a genuine pre-estimate of the loss the innocent party would suffer in respect of that breach. If the intention of the LD is to threaten the guilty party into performance (rather than to compensate the innocent party), it is likely to be seen as a penalty.

 

Tips on how to make it less likely that your LD is deemed to be a penalty

 

Although each case is decided on its facts, there are a number of guiding principles to be taken into account when drafting an LD clause, including:

avoid specifying sums payable upon breach which are so high that they cannot be seen as commercially justifiable or a genuine pre-estimate of loss

different types of breach should generally attract payment of different sums in order to be regarded in each case as a genuine pre-estimate of loss

if the primary obligation is payment of a particular sum, then breach of this clause should not usually give rise to a 'penalty' payment of a much higher sum

keep your calculations to show you have tried to assess likely damage for a particular breach

include contractual wording to say that the parties agree that the sum is a genuine pre-estimate of loss and not a penalty (although not decisive, this kind of wording can at least be persuasive to the courts)

if drafting a take or pay clause, consider whether the specified sum is commercially justifiable, in the light of the High Court's recent judgments stating that such clauses are subject to the rule against penalties.