PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

ParkingEye being unreasonable - shock, Trying to charge me £100 for a simple oversight
Slartybartfarst
post Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 09:19
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 8 Jan 2018
Member No.: 95,841



Until recently I had never heard of ParkingEye although I had heard of their parent company Capita (or Crapita as they are known to their customers). I've certainly heard of them now and boy do I want to get even - here's the story.....it's a long one so bear with me.

I use a website called yourparkingspace.co.uk (and also justpark.com which is equally good) - it's a brilliantly simple idea where people with a parking space or a driveway they don't use can rent it out on an hourly or daily basis. Whenever I go to London I usually pay about £10 to park all day in a pre-booked space. I've parked in central London for £12.50.
The point however is not the price but the fact that you know you have a space reserved - so if you have an appointment there's no hunting round looking for a space whilst worrying about a deadline.

Now that this has been up and running for a couple of years hotels and multi storeys have latched on and also post available spaces on both sites. I've used an underground carpark on the Southbank in London - £12 all day yet the daily tariff if you just turn up is £20. ?? As you can see it's a brilliant idea and now I generally drive in to London and don't use the tubes at all - which is where all this started because recently I suddenly developed claustrophobia - but that's another story.

My problem with ParkingEye started because I recently used the Budget Ibis Hotel car park at Luton Airport whilst on a day trip to Paris - £6.40 all day (and a 10 minute walk) at the Ibis versus £27 at the airport (another bunch of shameless thieves). The Ibis gets about a fiver and yoursparkingspace get the rest - all very fair and reasonable.

The yourparkingspace website requires you to register your registration to verify that when you park you are you and your car is your car. Unfortunately due to a last minute change of plan (at 4.00 in the morning) I took my car instead of my wife's - and it was her car that was registered to use the parking space that day. Given the hour I neglected to change the reg on the website. I did however point out the problem to the reception staff at the Ibis and then left the confirmation on the dash.

Consequently a few days later I get one of ParkingEye's arrogant little letters telling me I owed them £60/£100 complete with pics of my car entering and leaving the car park. So I completed the 'Appeal Process' (LOL ! ) , explained the situation, pointed out that I had paid for parking, I had used parking and the two companies who had provided the service (i.e. actually done something !) had both been paid the agreed amount. There was no loss and no fraud. I included a copy of the booking confirmation.

ParkingEye replied on the 29th December (they worked over Christmas - bless !) that the appeal was rejected - quelle surprise - so I've filed a POPLA appeal and now wait to see what happens.

Given that there was no intent to defraud (I have the booking confirmation), I got what I paid for and no one lost out - have they got a leg to stand on ?

Thanks for a great forum by the way.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 09:19
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 09:25
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,649
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



What, exactly, did you use in your appeal to POPLA?

I hope you used PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL - the IBIS staff gave you permission to park there, knew of the address change, and did nothing about it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 09:30
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,902
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



Alas, I suspect POPLA will agree with PE. (As they often only focus on whether the charge was correctly issued - and it probably was)

Obviously, PE are not in business to accept appeals (there's no money in that).

However, only a court can 'force' you to pay so you haven't prejudiced any potential legal action.

This post has been edited by Jlc: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 09:31


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Slartybartfarst
post Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 09:36
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 8 Jan 2018
Member No.: 95,841



Thanks for reply - this is what I sent:

'I paid for a parking space at the Ibis Budget Hotel using the website yourparkingspace.com.
Due to a last minute change of plan I used a different car to the one previously registered on the yourparkingspace website. I neglected to change (at 4am) the registration on the website. I did inform the staff at the hotel that the car was different to the one shown on the printed booking confirmation and I left the same piece of paper in clear view on top of the dash.
Consequently Parking Eye's camera detected **** *** as being parked without paying. However I had paid - I just used a different car. The two companies who provided a service - Ibis Hotels and yourparkingspace - both received the agreed payment for that service. There was no 'loss' and no fraud.

In their rejection by their 'appeals process' !!! Parkingeye state that 'insuficient time was paid for' which is odd on two counts.
Firstly 'insufficient' implies something had been paid yet - according to their original information - I hadn't paid anything.
Secondly although I booked from 6am to 10pm and actually parked from 5.24 (over worried not to miss flight) to 10.39 (return flight delayed in Paris) a quick check of the yourparkingspace website would show that the additional time makes no difference to the amount charged. So Parkingeye seem rather confused as to what they are accusing me of.'

So no mention of 'PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL' (never heard of it unfortunately). The Ibis staff did acknowledge what I said but probably didn't make a note of it. I assumed that leaving the confirmation on the dash was 'belt and braces' as it showed the time and the date. I didn't realise that the car park cameras where operated by someone other than the hotel.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 09:50
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,902
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



The ANPR cameras won't care about anything in the car - just the registration plate of entry and exit.

I'm not so sure the hotel actually gave you permission? (i.e. the promissory estoppel over PE's signs)

You had agreed a separate parking contract but the terms would be important, e.g. is the car registration a condition?

Remember, PE don't receive any of the tariff you paid - so they are dead keen for their £60 (£100) charge as it's how they make their money. You need to check the terms of the parking contract you entered into as there's possibly an argument you entered into a separate contract with PE.

I think POPLA will reject your appeal so start preparing if PE raise a claim (and they raise lots).

The contravention from them can be quite confusing - but simply they cannot match the stay with a list of authorised vrm's and issue an 'insufficient' time reason. (Probably being 0 in their minds)

QUOTE (Slartybartfarst @ Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 09:36) *
Secondly although I booked from 6am to 10pm and actually parked from 5.24 (over worried not to miss flight) to 10.39 (return flight delayed in Paris) a quick check of the yourparkingspace website would show that the additional time makes no difference to the amount charged. So Parkingeye seem rather confused as to what they are accusing me of.'

Although the tariff might be the same they could still claim you've agreed to pay £60 (£100) if parked outside the agreed hours.

Remember they are working on sharp practice.

This post has been edited by Jlc: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 09:47


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ManxRed
post Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 09:55
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,912
Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Member No.: 21,992



If the contravention is based on the fact that the car in question wasn't allowed to park there, then this is Trespass is it not?

Do they have signs on site offering parking to non-permitted vehicles (i.e. a P&D scheme for cars NOT authorised by the hotel)?


--------------------
Sometimes I use big words I don't understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 10:45
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,649
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



No, the contravention is "insufficient time paid for", as given. THe car was allowed to be there.

OP - are the signs lit? 5.29am would be dark, yes?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ManxRed
post Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 10:50
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,912
Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Member No.: 21,992



No, that was the response to the appeal. What was the original 'contravention', and what do the signs say?

This post has been edited by ManxRed: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 10:51


--------------------
Sometimes I use big words I don't understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 10:50
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,209
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



But you already had a paid contract to park there. You had no need for an additional contract for parking issued by PE.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Slartybartfarst
post Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 11:12
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 8 Jan 2018
Member No.: 95,841



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 10:45) *
No, the contravention is "insufficient time paid for", as given. THe car was allowed to be there.

OP - are the signs lit? 5.29am would be dark, yes?


First point - the original letter doesn't state the actual infringement - it just states that the car was there and then lists all the possible infringements. Their email reply to my appeal stated ' Our records show that insufficient time was paid for' which implies that I paid something when according to the information they would have had from Ibis I had apparently paid nothing.

Second point - yes it was dark when I parked and dark when I left. I don't recall seeing any signage (and I'm 40 miles away so I can't go and look) but as I knew that I had paid and I've used the same place and system before I wasn't looking for signs.

This really pisses me off - always indicative of a shifty firm is that they don't provide an email address so I can't reply except by sending a letter - which will probably get filed in the bin.
I do however have their address - or is that just an empty building ?


QUOTE (ostell @ Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 10:50) *
But you already had a paid contract to park there. You had no need for an additional contract for parking issued by PE.


That what I'm hoping although yourparkingspace's T&C state

10.2.4 Must use the vehicle the details of which have been notified as part of the Booking. If the Driver uses a different vehicle they may be unable to park. If the Driver wishes to change the registered vehicle to be used for the parking space, the Driver must contact YourParkingSpace in advance of the booking so that YourParkingSpace can confirm and notify the Space Owner.

I was assuming that the fact I can prove that I booked, I can prove I own both cars and that no company lost out - indeed they were both paid for the service provided - means that no 'offence' has been committed. Isn't that fair and reasonable ? ( I know PE aren't but what about POPLA and our great judicial system ?) PE are just being worthless shits.

This post has been edited by Slartybartfarst: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 11:37
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
emsgeorge
post Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 11:23
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 436
Joined: 2 Dec 2007
Member No.: 15,762



/but you didn't pay PE though. You paid someone else, which is why PE don't care.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 11:33
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,902
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (Slartybartfarst @ Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 11:12) *
I was assuming that the fact I can prove that I booked, I can prove I own both cars and that no company lost out - indeed they were both paid for the service provided - means that no offence has been committed. Isn't that fair and reasonable ? ( I know PE aren't but what about POPLA and our great judicial system ?)

Please don't call it an offence - it's a contractual matter. There are consumer laws about fair contracts but PPC's seem to have run roughshod over those. Whether an actual loss occurred isn't necessarily a factor. (Take ParkingEye v Beavis for example)

At the moment it's not clear what the cause of action actually is (trespass could be argued for example) and neither will the particulars of claim if they decide to sue. That 10.2.4 clause doesn't do you any favours.

But it's definitely worth a fight. I wouldn't pay it even if POPLA don't uphold your appeal. The risk is not particularly high even if you lost at court.

This post has been edited by Jlc: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 11:35


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TheDisapprovingB...
post Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 12:19
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 241
Joined: 16 Jul 2015
Member No.: 78,371



I picked a few parts that look relevant from their Terms & Conditions (https://www.yourparkingspace.co.uk/company/terms-conditions):

QUOTE
10.1 The Booking Process

10.1.1 This Agreement becomes binding on the Driver and the Space Owner when the Driver makes a booking and payment is received by YourParkingSpace.

10.1.2 Each party acknowledges that the Agreement contains the whole agreement between the parties and that it has not relied upon any oral or written representations made to it by the other

10.1.3 You may not incorporate any additional terms into the Booking Agreement other than the restrictions clearly included in your listing. You agree not to propose to the Driver or Space Owner any additional terms or amendments to the Booking Agreement after a booking has been made without our consent. The Driver is not obliged to accept any further terms once we have accepted a booking on your behalf.

10.2 Driver Rights and Obligations

The Driver:
...
10.2.4 Must use the vehicle the details of which have been notified as part of the Booking. If the Driver uses a different vehicle they may be unable to park. If the Driver wishes to change the registered vehicle to be used for the parking space, the Driver must contact YourParkingSpace in advance of the booking so that YourParkingSpace can confirm and notify the Space Owner.
...
10.2.7 Where possible, any dispute between the Driver and the Space Owner relating to the Parking Space should be dealt with at the start of the Booking Period and without our involvement so that the Driver may still fulfil the Booking. Where this does not prove possible, the Driver agrees that YourParkingSpace may mediate (at its discretion) and attempt to resolve the concern or query so that the booking can be fulfilled.
...
The Space Owner agrees to:
10.3.1 Provide the Parking Space in accordance with the details and information set out in your YourParkingSpace listing;
...
10.3.3 Use best endeavours to settle any disputes that may arise during the Booking Period as soon as practicable so that the Driver may still fulfil his booking.
...
As a Driver or a Space Owner:
...
10.4.3 You agree to not attempt to solicit or perform services for or induce or attempt to induce, any customer, supplier, licensee or business relation of YourParkingSpace or any Driver or Space Owner through any communication including written and oral communication made by yourself or a third party to transact outside of the Website and the App.


So, there's an argument that you breached 10.2.4 by not notifying YPS of the car change ahead of time, but the contract you entered makes no allowance for any additional charge for breaching this condition. Even so, you DID notify the space owner on arrival in accordance with 10.2.7, and they still permitted you to park in accordance with 10.3.1. Term 10.1.3 is clear that the space owner cannot introduce additional terms, and that you are entitled to reject any additional terms introduced after acceptance of the booking.

Parking "contracts" are usually based on the concept of "The signs are so obvious that the driver must have seen them, and therefore agreed to them by proceeding to park". They're not designed for situations where the driver has already entered into a contract to park. In this case, Parking Eye are attempting to add new terms to a contract that they're a stranger to.

If possible, I'd email PE and POPLA with an additional statement along these lines. If not, and POPLA rule against you, the decision is not binding on you anyway, so focus your efforts in two places:

1. Contact Ibis and YourParkingSpace and complain about Ibis's agent breaching section 10.1.3 of your agreement by attempting to impose additional terms after the contract has been agreed, and that their agent is attempting to solicit additional business relations contrary to section 10.4.3 of the agreement. Do that now anyway, since the POPLA decision is irrelevant to this step.

2. Print the T&Cs now in case they change. Write to Parking Eye, enclosing a copy of the agreement and advising them of the following points:
a. In accordance with your rights under section 10.1.3 of your contract, you are rejecting the additional terms that Ibis and their agents are attempting to impose on your already concluded contract.
b. Because you already had a contract to park, and Ibis were aware and had agreed to the change of vehicle under that contract, Parking Eye had no reason to obtain your details from the DVLA. By doing so, they have breached the DPA, and their attempts to enforce their charge constitutes tortious interference with the contract between you and YPS/Ibis
c. They are required to remove your details from their records and inform you within 21 days that they have done so under section 10 of the DPA. Continuing with this matter is causing distress and harassment.

This puts you in a good position to counterclaim for damages should they initiate court proceedings.

EDIT: I just noticed that you started and ended your parking period outside the time you booked the space for. That makes things a little stickier. I'd still go with the same approach, since the contract you agreed already allows for this:

QUOTE
10.2.3 Must only use the Parking Space at the times specified in this booking confirmation. If the Driver uses the Parking Space at any earlier or later time, the Driver will be liable to the Space Owner under the Booking Agreement and the Driver’s vehicle may be towed.
10.2.8 Must vacate the Parking Space and cease using the Parking Space by the end of the Booking Period. The exact departure time from the Parking Space will be as stated in the Booking Confirmation. you authorise us to collect payment on behalf of the Space Owner for additional times used using the credit or debit card details you have supplied.


This post has been edited by TheDisapprovingBrit: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 12:35
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Slartybartfarst
post Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 12:36
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 8 Jan 2018
Member No.: 95,841



QUOTE (TheDisapprovingBrit @ Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 12:19) *
I picked a few parts that look relevant from their Terms & Conditions (https://www.yourparkingspace.co.uk/company/terms-conditions):
.......................................


This puts you in a good position to counterclaim for damages should they initiate court proceedings.


Tremendous - thank you so much. I will do as you advise.

Me suing them for damages ? Like the sound of that ! I've seen somewhere £19/hour, £95/day and distress is up to the judge - is that right ?

QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 11:33) *
But it's definitely worth a fight. I wouldn't pay it even if POPLA don't uphold your appeal.


Understood - thanks. I've also emailed the MP who is sponsoring the Parking Code of Practice bill next month - futile I know but if we all do nothing this is the situation we end up with.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 12:38
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,209
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



No, what is being talked about is a breach of the DPA because they applied to the DVLA for your data when there was no reason. About £300 - £600?

What you are talking about are costs, a separate subject.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TheDisapprovingB...
post Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 12:41
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 241
Joined: 16 Jul 2015
Member No.: 78,371



£19/hour is costs, and you don't get paid for distress. Damages for a breach of DPA would be in the region of £250-500. Have a read of some of the Residential Parking threads on here. The concept is basically the same - you have a pre-existing contract which overrides the one Parking Eye claim you entered with them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Slartybartfarst
post Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 12:41
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 8 Jan 2018
Member No.: 95,841



QUOTE (ostell @ Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 12:38) *
No, what is being talked about is a breach of the DPA because they applied to the DVLA for your data when there was no reason. About £300 - £600?

What you are talking about are costs, a separate subject.


Ah - ok understood. Does the DPA thing stack up though - as far as PE were aware there was a reason. ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ManxRed
post Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 12:45
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,912
Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Member No.: 21,992



QUOTE (Slartybartfarst @ Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 12:41) *
Does the DPA thing stack up though - as far as PE were aware there was a reason. ?


No there wasn't a reason. The car was parked there under a separate agreement to which they weren't a party. They had no reason at all.


--------------------
Sometimes I use big words I don't understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TheDisapprovingB...
post Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 12:46
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 241
Joined: 16 Jul 2015
Member No.: 78,371



They believed they had a reason because they didn't bother to check with their principal (Ibis). They don't get to breach the DPA just because it's easier than carrying out due diligence.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Slartybartfarst
post Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 12:50
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 8 Jan 2018
Member No.: 95,841



QUOTE (ManxRed @ Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 12:45) *
QUOTE (Slartybartfarst @ Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 12:41) *
Does the DPA thing stack up though - as far as PE were aware there was a reason. ?


No there wasn't a reason. The car was parked there under a separate agreement to which they weren't a party. They had no reason at all.


'kin 'ell - I'm starting to feel quite positive.

QUOTE (TheDisapprovingBrit @ Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 12:46) *
They believed they had a reason because they didn't bother to check with their principal (Ibis). They don't get to breach the DPA just because it's easier than carrying out due diligence.


Cheers gents - all much appreciated.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Wednesday, 20th June 2018 - 01:43
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.