A disturbing and cautionary tale

[Ryde-on-time]

I would definitely write to the Hire company demanding they submit the correct Hirer details to Parking Eye within 7 days and to confirm in writing to you that they have done this. Send the letter by traceable means. The more you have in writing the better 

 

I would also write to Holiday Inn demanding they get the charge dropped as, irrespective of the driver, the van was being driven by someone staying there. If Holiday Inn employed Parking Eye they are jointly responsible for their actions

 

Have you appealed to Parking eye yet? (they will of course reject this - like trying to reason with a thief) They should however include a popla code so you can appeal to them

[Ryde-on-time]

Which is why I record important phone calls these days - I simply mutter that they are being recorded, not my fault if they don't hear it and although it wouldn't be legally admissable it's useful in this sort of case.

 

Citizens advice beckons.

I agree this is good advice

 

Even if you do not mention that you are recording the call you could still use a transcript as evidence in court. If the accuracy of the transcript was put in doubt then one could always offer to play a recording (it would be hard for the other partly to object)

[Zero Gravitas]

Hi Brian,

 

Let the games commence...  In fact, in one way you were quite lucky. Some hire companies, when presented with a PCN, will simply pay the invoice and then immediately recharge it to the credit card used to for the vehicle hire, with an "administration" fee on top.

 

And - Beast6606 - a note of caution. Citizens Advice have an appalling track record in advising that these invoices should actually be paid. So don't go there...

 

I've been typing whilst people are replying - and I think Ryde-on-time's advice is good and should be followed.  In the meantime, I'm sure you said in the OP that you had appealed to Parking Eye.  As per my last post, it would help you could show us your exact appeal and the response from Private Eye when it arrives.

 

In the meantime, if you are willing, it would be good to post your story so far on the Money Saving Expert Parking Forum ( http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/forumdisplay.php?f=163 ). They love this sort of thing on there and you will get good advice.  And in fact, this thread has already been referenced over there ( http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5259741 ) - although that's more about the blue badge aspects of this thread.

 

ZG.

[Horsetan]

.....I'm sorry to say that Mark SG is completely wrong ....

 

No you're not! 

 

The MSE forum discussions / suggestions/advice on this subject led to me formulating standard POPLA appeal grounds that my old man could use. As stated earlier, these haven't failed to produce the desired result yet.

[2mmMark]

Watchdog had a feature a couple of weeks ago where they went undercover at "a parking firm". It exposed how they actively discourage appeals. The firm did not appear but the representative of their trade body did and spouted the usual mealy mouthed waffle.

 

The banning of clamping simply moved the former clamper's income stream to a new tactic. This really needs strong legislation to control it.

 

Mark

[Torper]

The saga may continue, but why bother?  The hotel, you say, has already offered to have the "fine" cancelled.  Why not take them up on it?  I don't see anything to be gained by "getting at" Parking Eye - they don't seem to have done anything wrong.  If you carry on they may just take you to court, and I don't think it's a done deal that you'd win - the court may not believe your rather strange story, particularly as the paperwork does not confirm it.

 

I'm, also a little perturbed that you initially said" I didn't hire that van, have never hired from the company in question,and never drove it into or out of their car park, and have never been a 'named driver' on a vehicle hired from that company by a third party."  That wasn't really entirely frank as, if i read your more recent posting properly, you did know the company, you have had dealings with them, and you knew that the van had been driven by your brother (with you as a passenger?) into the car park, all of which you omitted to say in your initial posting.

 

DT

[Horsetan]

Watchdog had a feature a couple of weeks ago where they went undercover at "a parking firm". It exposed how they actively discourage appeals. .....

 

The number of successful direct appeals to these shysters can probably be counted on the fingers of one hand, and those that succeed may well be those related in some way to the company top brass, i.e. relatives and friends only.

 

POPLA on the other hand is that much more promising. A family friend, who retired from his job many years ago, took particular delight in tying the system up in as much correspondence as possible to pressure the parking firms into giving up. "After all", he said, "I'm a pensioner. I've got all the time in the world....." 

[Zero Gravitas]

The saga may continue, but why bother?  The hotel, you say, has already offered to have the "fine" cancelled.  Why not take them up on it?  I don't see anything to be gained by "getting at" Parking Eye - they don't seem to have done anything wrong.  If you carry on they may just take you to court, and I don't think it's a done deal that you'd win - the court may not believe your rather strange story, particularly as the paperwork does not confirm it.

 

 

Because Parking Eye have form for not cancelling charges even when instructed to by the landowner (or asking for an "administration fee" to cancel).

 

And Parking Eye have certainly done something wrong - they are demanding £100 to which they are simply not entitled. As a private company claiming that a "contract" has been breached, they are entitled to compensation to put them back in the position that they would have been in before the contract was breached; i.e. compensation for any loss arising directly from the breach of the contract (the technical term is GPEOL, or genuine pre-estimate of loss - which £100 certainly is not!!).  If the car park was free (a reasonable assumption as it was a hotel car park) then the loss would be zero. If the car park were not free, the loss would be the actual parking fee - and certainly not the £100 pounds that Parking Eye are claiming. And whilst the Beavis case is on its way to the Supreme Court, that's the law as it stands.

 

And in any case, this is still a very long way from court!  At the very least, there would be an appeal to POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals), and in the very, very unlikely event that the appeal was lost; Parking Eye would have to be mad to take this anywhere near a Court, when witnesses could be produced to corroborate BR2975's story.

[hayfield]

Are you sitting comfortably ?

.

Then, I'll begin.

.

What follows is the 'full' story so far.

.

A few months ago, I reserved a vehicle at a hire company, and paid a 50% deposit. The hire period is for a week, in late July 2015.

.

Prior to that, I had never done business with the company.

.

One's brother, has conducted business previously with the company, and obtained a car derived van from them for the Derby Show (first weekend in May 2015).

.

He was the 'hirer' and the only 'named driver' of the small van.

.

On arrival at the Holiday Inn Express, Derby Pride Park we checked in, and gave details of the vehicle to the receptionist.

.

Subsequenly, as described, I received a 'Parking Charge Notice' from Parking Eye' - addressed to me, as 'hirer/lessee' of the small van and the notice claimed Parking Eye were in possession of the hire agreement and other documentation showing I was the hirer at the time; obtained from the hire company.

.

"There's no way Parking Eye can have paperwork from the car hire company identifying me as the hirer/lessee at that time ?"

.

Wrong

.

A subsequent call to the car hire company, and a conversation with the female employee had her telling me their records (now proved to be incorrect) showed I was the hirer/lessee of her company's vehicle at the time; but then remembered my brother collecting the vehicle ( "Oh you mean the model railway man" !!!).

.

The car hire employee agreed that she had sent my details (not those of my brother, the hirer) to Parking Eye when they required details of the hirer.

.

As a result, Parking Eye were under the impression I was liable for the charge.

.

To compound the matter, either Parking Eye failed to ask Holiday Inn Express if we were guests at the relevant time OR Holiday Inn Express forgot to update their records and notify Parking Eye that our van was 'authorised' as we were guests. 

.

Returning to the car hire company, the lady admitted it was her mistake, and grudgingly apologised - but, steadfastly refused to submit a further amended reply to Parking Eye - OR - contact Holiday Inn Express on my behalf, in an effort to resolve the matter.

.

A request to speak to the manager or a director was met with "they'll only tell you the same as I have".

.

The saga WILL continue.

.

Brian R

 

 

I would write a letter to the hire company, stating as they admitted that they gave incorrect information to Parking Eye and that unless they immediately inform Parking Eye of the error you will be taking them to court to recoup any out of pocket expenses you incur and complain to the information Commissioner for a breach of the Data Protection Act.

 

Secondly write to the hotel, accepting their offer to cancel the ticket, then briefly explain the problems you have incurred even though your party gave the vehicle details to reception and that both of you were guests at the time anyway. Ask how they failed to record the vans details and inform Parking eye you had parked legally.

 

Once all has been resolved complain to the hotel about all the trouble their error has caused, hopefully you may get a free couple of nights with the Mrs 

[Horsetan]

....Once all has been resolved complain to the hotel about all the trouble their error has caused, hopefully you may get a free couple of nights with the Mrs 

 

....after which you can then slag 'em off on TripAdvisor 

[kevinlms]

I would write a letter to the hire company, stating as they admitted that they gave incorrect information to Parking Eye and that unless they immediately inform Parking Eye of the error you will be taking them to court to recoup any out of pocket expenses you incur and complain to the information Commissioner for a breach of the Data Protection Act.

 

Secondly write to the hotel, accepting their offer to cancel the ticket, then briefly explain the problems you have incurred even though your party gave the vehicle details to reception and that both of you were guests at the time anyway. Ask how they failed to record the vans details and inform Parking eye you had parked legally.

 

Once all has been resolved complain to the hotel about all the trouble their error has caused, hopefully you may get a free couple of nights with the Mrs 

That would seem to me to be the logical course. Complain to those that caused the information to be wrongly supplied and get them to get the fine cancelled. Their stuff up, their problem to sort - otherwise they'll look silly in court.

[kevinlms]

We have a toll road operator, who allowed an hour to travel along the full length of their road, which was ample. At least until they built/leased a fuel & food outlets at roughly the half way stage.

Now if you travelled the full length, you received automatically a capped toll.

 

Problems started to occur when families stopped at the fuel/food outlets & took over the hour to complete their journey.

 

Not something I bet they told their franchisees about!

 

Don't know what happened with the outcome for that, but automatic, electronic tolling, ought to be able to pick up vehicles completing the full length, with a break.

[Fat Controller]

We have a toll road operator, who allowed an hour to travel along the full length of their road, which was ample. At least until they built/leased a fuel & food outlets at roughly the half way stage.

Now if you travelled the full length, you received automatically a capped toll.

 

Problems started to occur when families stopped at the fuel/food outlets & took over the hour to complete their journey.

 

Not something I bet they told their franchisees about!

 

Don't know what happened with the outcome for that, but automatic, electronic tolling, ought to be able to pick up vehicles completing the full length, with a break.

The French ones seem to be able to cope with extended journey times; however, I believe their traffic police wait around the tolls for anyone who's had a rather rapid transit...

[MarkSG]

 

In the meantime, if you are willing, it would be good to post your story so far on the Money Saving Expert Parking Forum ( http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/forumdisplay.php?f=163 ). They love this sort of thing on there and you will get good advice.  And in fact, this thread has already been referenced over there ( http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5259741 ) - although that's more about the blue badge aspects of this thread.

 

 

There's a wonderfully ignorant comment on that thread: "In any case the Equality Act is a statute and as such trumps any case law."

 

That's a statement which can only be made by someone who is completely clueless about how the law works in a Common Law jurisdiction such as the UK. And that's someone who, on that forum, is a "five star" contributor with over 8,000 "thanks".

 

Proof, once again, I am afraid, that anyone who relies on that kind of forum for legal advice is likely to find themselves seriously misled.

 

If you want sensible legal discussion, I'd strongly suggest subscribing to the uk.legal.moderated newsgroup, where you will find many contributors with genuine legal knowledge, qualifications and experience. In fact, I may raise this topic there, and see what the general opinion is. Although, unlike the threadstarter over on that forum, I won't invite ad hominem attacks on those here who I disagree with.

[Torper]

And Parking Eye have certainly done something wrong - they are demanding £100 to which they are simply not entitled.

 

That's up to the court to decide and, as of now, the only binding ruling is the one made by the High Court in the Beavis/Parking Eye appeal in April.  The three judges unanimously upheld the decision of Cambridge County Court that an £85 charge was reasonable and enforceable.  To quote the court, "Viewed in purely financial terms, ParkingEye suffers no direct financial loss if an individual motorist overstays the period of free parking. However, it may suffer a loss indirectly, because its contract requires it to manage the car park in a way that enables it to provide free parking available for a limited period for the benefit of its tenants and their customers.  Although the principal object of the charge was to deter overstaying, it was neither improper in its purpose nor manifestly excessive in amount, having regard to the level of charges imposed by local authorities and others for overstaying in public car parks."

 

That case is, I think, subject to appeal but personally I think that it is a not unreasonable decision. We are talking about the law of contract and, on the face of it, if a car driver sees a clearly displayed notice advising him that it is private land and if he stays on it longer than a set period of time he'll be charged £100, one could argue that that charge is and should be payable.  Beavis parked in a car park where there was a notice clearly stating that the first two hours was free, and a charge of £85 would be levied if that period was exceeded.  By parking, Beavis agreed the terms of that contract, but he stayed an extra hour.  His choice - he knew what the consequences would be.

 

DT

[Zero Gravitas]

That's up to the court to decide and, as of now, the only binding ruling is the one made by the High Court in the Beavis/Parking Eye appeal in April.  The three judges unanimously upheld the decision of Cambridge County Court that an £85 charge was reasonable and enforceable.  To quote the court, "Viewed in purely financial terms, ParkingEye suffers no direct financial loss if an individual motorist overstays the period of free parking. However, it may suffer a loss indirectly, because its contract requires it to manage the car park in a way that enables it to provide free parking available for a limited period for the benefit of its tenants and their customers.  Although the principal object of the charge was to deter overstaying, it was neither improper in its purpose nor manifestly excessive in amount, having regard to the level of charges imposed by local authorities and others for overstaying in public car parks."

 

That case is, I think, subject to appeal but personally I think that it is a not unreasonable decision. We are talking about the law of contract and, on the face of it, if a car driver sees a clearly displayed notice advising him that it is private land and if he stays on it longer than a set period of time he'll be charged £100, one could argue that that charge is and should be payable.  Beavis parked in a car park where there was a notice clearly stating that the first two hours was free, and a charge of £85 would be levied if that period was exceeded.  By parking, Beavis agreed the terms of that contract, but he stayed an extra hour.  His choice - he knew what the consequences would be.

 

DT

 

The Beavis case is currently scheduled to be heard at the Supreme Court towards the end of July this year, and so the Court of Appeal judgement, whilst persuasive, is not binding; and in any case there is plenty of evidence that both Small Claims and POPLA hearings are being stayed pending the Supreme Court decision.

 

Whilst you have quoted the court, you have done it out of context and outside of the specific circumstances of the car park at which the Beavis event occurred - namely that Parking Eye paid the landowners £1000 a week to issue PCNs in that car park, and the PCNs are the only source of income for Parking Eye in the car park; which led to the frankly bizarre conclusion that because Parking Eye had done this, they were then entitled on grounds of "commercial justification" to issue penalties because they had to do this in order not to make a loss.  This both drives a coach and horses through several hundred years of contract law, and is logically clearly nonsense.

 

Please note I am not advocating un-managed car parks and a parking free-for-all.  I simply object to the principles and tactics that these Private Parking companies use to maximise their income at the expense of the public. The only sensible way to prevent car park abuse (where it is likely to occur) is to have barriers, with a ticket-on-entry system where you pay to exist based on exactly how long you have stayed. However, there is no money for the PPCs in such systems, which is why they have in some cases removed them from hospital car parks and replaced them with pay and display systems that make it far more likely for them to be able to issue a Charge Notice.

 

Interestingly, your location is Scotland, where the Protection of Freedoms Act does not apply, and Private Parking Companies can only pursue the driver for any alleged parking charge.  As far as I am aware, parking in Scotland does not appear to have descended into complete chaos...

[Ryde-on-time]

 

That case is, I think, subject to appeal but personally I think that it is a not unreasonable decision. We are talking about the law of contract and, on the face of it, if a car driver sees a clearly displayed notice advising him that it is private land and if he stays on it longer than a set period of time he'll be charged £100, one could argue that that charge is and should be payable.  Beavis parked in a car park where there was a notice clearly stating that the first two hours was free, and a charge of £85 would be levied if that period was exceeded.  By parking, Beavis agreed the terms of that contract, but he stayed an extra hour.  His choice - he knew what the consequences would be.

 

DT

The trouble is that the signage is often not clear and that it one of the successful ways of appealling a ticket through Popla. It is obviously not in the parking companies interests to make the signs clear which is why they are so often poorly sighted, obscured by trees, stuck 20 foot up a pole and printed in such small type as to be unreadable.

 

I object to anyone who abuses free car parks or who stay longer than permitted but private parking companies (who have now developed since clamping was baned) are not there in the interests of managing car parks, they are there to make money and by whatever means The problem is some have cottoned on to the fact that bullying and freightening the most vulnerable members of society is a particularly good money earner

[PhilH]

Being a simple soul I don't understand why the OP is the one who has to go through all the hoops to put this right when it is someone else's mistake.

 

Surely it has to be proven that somebody has transgressed, not that person proving they didn't? Or was I asleep when it became 'guilty till proved innocent'?

[Revolution Mike]

I would write a letter to the hire company, stating as they admitted that they gave incorrect information to Parking Eye and that unless they immediately inform Parking Eye of the error you will be taking them to court to recoup any out of pocket expenses you incur and complain to the information Commissioner for a breach of the Data Protection Act.

 

Secondly write to the hotel, accepting their offer to cancel the ticket, then briefly explain the problems you have incurred even though your party gave the vehicle details to reception and that both of you were guests at the time anyway. Ask how they failed to record the vans details and inform Parking eye you had parked legally.

 

Once all has been resolved complain to the hotel about all the trouble their error has caused, hopefully you may get a free couple of nights with the Mrs 

 

Quite - these seem to be the salient points! The hire company provided the wrong name and the hotel failed to tell the parking cpy that you were guests and therefore entitled to park...

[Jonboy]

***reply to post #68***

 

Because it is a civil, not criminal matter and if it came to court would be a balance of probabilities matter, rather than outright guilt.

 

On the story above it would seem both the OP and Parking eye are at the sharp end of someone else's mistake.

[gordon s]

Just to add to reply 70, these things tend to start as one small item but then escalate once debt collection companies become involved and your credit rating is impacted.  It can then take months to try and resolve that problem as there are often several companies involved and no one will take responsibility as you get passed from company to comapny.  Been there and done that with my son's mobile phone bill many years ago.  What started as something he just ignored snowballed into a huge problem that took months to try and sort out.

[RJS1977]

 The only sensible way to prevent car park abuse .... is to have ... a ticket-on-entry system where you pay to exist

 

That sounds a lot worse to me!

[Zero Gravitas]

Just to add to reply 70, these things tend to start as one small item but then escalate once debt collection companies become involved and your credit rating is impacted.  It can then take months to try and resolve that problem as there are often several companies involved and no one will take responsibility as you get passed from company to comapny.  Been there and done that with my son's mobile phone bill many years ago.  What started as something he just ignored snowballed into a huge problem that took months to try and sort out.

 

For clarification - there could only be any impact to your credit rating over a Private parking ticket if, and only if, the parking company took you to court, they won and you then did not pay them within 28 days.  That would also be the only point from which bailiffs could become involved.

 

So if the parking company, or their debt collectors, write to you with dire warnings about sending bailiffs around and affecting your ability to get credit - remember that they are being somewhat disingenuous, and that their sole motivation is to get your money.

[Horsetan]

.....That case is, I think, subject to appeal but personally I think that it is a not unreasonable decision. .....

It is not unreasonable because it does not affect you. Had you been the one affected, I'd be inclined to think that your approach would be very very different.....

 

....where you pay to exist based on exactly how long you have stayed....

I see an upturn in business for Dignitas. I thought we already paid enough to exist as it was!

[Zero Gravitas]

That sounds a lot worse to me!

 

That might be a little harsh - but if Parking Eye could find a way of doing that I'm sure they would give it a good go! I'm not going to edit my post - I prefer that version.