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 (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 09:19
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
TheDisapprovingB...
post Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 13:02
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 225
Joined: 16 Jul 2015
Member No.: 78,371



While you're printing out the T&C's, print out the listing page for the car park too. The contract allows the space owner to include additional restrictions in their listing, so you need to get evidence that no such restrictions were included at the time you made the booking.

This post has been edited by TheDisapprovingBrit: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 13:04
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Slartybartfarst
post Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 13:08
Post #22


Member


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



QUOTE (TheDisapprovingBrit @ Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 13:02) *
While you're printing out the T&C's, print out the listing page for the car park too. The contract allows the space owner to include additional restrictions in their listing, so you need to get evidence that no such restrictions were included at the time you made the booking.


Will do - thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 13:12
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,396
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: Hampshire
Member No.: 16,066



If I may make a point:

PE and POPLA would have been cut and dried with the right appeals, particularly not disclosing the driver's identity. However, we are where we are.

In order to avoid weakening your position from here on, make sure you post all drafts on here before you send them for review. It's very easy to trip up and grab defeat from the jaws of victory in this game.


--------------------
Cabbyman 8 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 13:18
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,948
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



Just a word of caution on the DPA - they (and the DVLA) will almost certainly hide behind the 'reasonable cause' clause to potentially pursue a charge. A success claim (or counterclaim) is by no means easy.


--------------------
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
Churchmouse
post Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 13:22
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,534
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



QUOTE (Slartybartfarst @ Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 09:19) *
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 ?

I agree with what has been said already. It's slightly late now, but could you post the PE NtK (omitting identifying details)?

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Slartybartfarst
post Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 13:43
Post #26


Member


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



QUOTE (cabbyman @ Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 13:12) *
If I may make a point:

PE and POPLA would have been cut and dried with the right appeals, particularly not disclosing the driver's identity. However, we are where we are.

In order to avoid weakening your position from here on, make sure you post all drafts on here before you send them for review. It's very easy to trip up and grab defeat from the jaws of victory in this game.


Yes will do thanks. I realise my error now (not realising the nature of PE at the time) although I must admit I don't understand the 'not disclosing' bit. Is it the case that they can't issue anything legal without a name and legally (?) they're not allowed to ask for it ? I'm sure it's not a short answer so leave it to me to find it in another thread.

Will follow the advice about posting drafts - presumably PE read this forum ?

QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 13:22) *
I agree with what has been said already. It's slightly late now, but could you post the PE NtK (omitting identifying details)?

--Churchmouse


I'll scan it tomorrow - but its identical to the one shown in Post 9 in a thread below titled 'Parking Eye hospital parking'.

There's nothing on the front about a specific infringement but there's a catch all paragraph on the back.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kommando
post Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 13:46
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,624
Joined: 6 Oct 2012
Member No.: 57,558



There is no legal requirement for the keeper to disclose the drivers identity, so if PE do not meet the requirements of POFA 2012 to allow the keeper to be liable then PE can only pursue the driver and not the keeper. As they only have an ANPR image of the numberplate they have no evidence of the drivers identity unless told by the keeper.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 13:47
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,270
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



THe contract, if one exists, is only with the driver. If they dont know who that is, then they have a slight issue. The vehicles keeper is not compelled to tell them *anything*.

A piece of legsialtion called POFA2012 banned clamping (good) but brought in this INSANE concept called "keeper liabiltiy" instead. This requires that the parking cpmopany comply with some rules, and then they get to chase the keeper instead. So if they DONT comply with the rules, they can only chase the driver - who they dont know.

They can ask for anything they like. of course they can! But noone has to tell them....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Slartybartfarst
post Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 13:56
Post #29


Member


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



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 13:47) *
THe contract, if one exists, is only with the driver. If they dont know who that is, then they have a slight issue. The vehicles keeper is not compelled to tell them *anything*.

A piece of legsialtion called POFA2012 banned clamping (good) but brought in this INSANE concept called "keeper liabiltiy" instead. This requires that the parking cpmopany comply with some rules, and then they get to chase the keeper instead. So if they DONT comply with the rules, they can only chase the driver - who they dont know.


What's the odds that this will get sorted as part of this https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-1...ofpractice.html ?

Being cynical I suspect that PE being owned by Capita (google 'em together crap government IT projects) will be able to exert pressure and nothing will change.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ManxRed
post Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 14:18
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,677
Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Member No.: 21,992



QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 13:18) *
Just a word of caution on the DPA - they (and the DVLA) will almost certainly hide behind the 'reasonable cause' clause to potentially pursue a charge. A success claim (or counterclaim) is by no means easy.


PE weren't a party to the contract that was offered for parking. They had no reasonable cause (even though they couldn't be *rsed to check).


--------------------
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
Jlc
post Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 14:26
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,948
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (ManxRed @ Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 14:18) *
QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 13:18) *
Just a word of caution on the DPA - they (and the DVLA) will almost certainly hide behind the 'reasonable cause' clause to potentially pursue a charge. A success claim (or counterclaim) is by no means easy.


PE weren't a party to the contract that was offered for parking. They had no reasonable cause (even though they couldn't be *rsed to check).

For a vrm not on their white list? I think it would be hard to argue against that they had reasonable cause.

I don't think it's a clear cut breach. There's a good argument there is a second contract in play and the first doesn't have primacy.

This post has been edited by Jlc: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 14:26


--------------------
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 - 14:36
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,677
Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Member No.: 21,992



They're operating in a car park where they are not the only company offering parking. They need to have some additional processes in place to check if the vehicle falls under their remit or not. The OP told the hotel of the change of cars prior to the event, and PE would have applied to the DVLA after studying their ANPR records some time afterwards. If they don't have a process in place to double check vehicle 'changes' (which ARE allowed under the Yourparkingspace terms and conditions, and which the OP complied with) then that's THEIR lookout.


--------------------
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 - 15:57
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 225
Joined: 16 Jul 2015
Member No.: 78,371



QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 14:26) *
There's a good argument there is a second contract in play and the first doesn't have primacy.


If we accept that the driver agreed to the YPS contract, then it must have primacy IMO. PE are entirely reliant on contract by performance - i.e. a driver can decline the offer of parking by choosing not to park. Furthermore, the driver doesn't get sight of the PE contract until they arrive on site. The YPS agreement means that the driver has a contract directly with Ibis, entered into in advance of their arrival, which specifically allows them to park without being bound by any further terms.

If the driver has a contract with Ibis allowing him to park and PE claim that by parking he is agreeing to a contract with them, that's pretty much a textbook definition of tortious interference.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 16:25
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,948
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



Yes, I'd agree with the potential tortious interference, it's just the 10.2.4 issue. But maybe the argument is about the duration of parking and the remedy - 10.2.3/10.2.8 - but PE are not involved in this contract to collect any additional payments. (if any were even due)

If the OP had changed the vehicle details then they'd be on extremely strong footing.

This post has been edited by Jlc: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 16:25


--------------------
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 Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 10:42
Post #35


Member


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



Sorry for delay - here's the PCN. Don't think it tells you much.



Edit - just been reading another thread and I now notice that 'date of event' was 23rd November and 'Date of Issue' was 8th December which by my reckoning is 14 full days between the two. Does that count for anything at this late stage?

There is no mention on the back of 14 days. I'd put it up here but I can only scan to a PDF and then take a picture with my phone - which is why the photo above is so rubbish.


This post has been edited by Slartybartfarst: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 11:02
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kommando
post Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 11:35
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,624
Joined: 6 Oct 2012
Member No.: 57,558



As they printed out for posting on day 14 then they cannot have delivered it by day 14, so no keeper liability as they have failed to meet the requirements of POFA 2012, they also know it which will be confirmed when you post the back of the notice, it will not attempt to invoke POFA 2012. So we need to see the back.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 11:46
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,302
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



And the 8th December was a Friday so delivery not assumed till 2 working days later, Tuesday 12th. Have a look at the back of the NTK. If PE think there is keeper liability then there will be mention of POFA on the back otherwise it will be silent.

If it is silent then a simple BOGOFF telling them they've missed the post, go chase the driver.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Slartybartfarst
post Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 12:21
Post #38


Member


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



QUOTE (ostell @ Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 11:46) *
And the 8th December was a Friday so delivery not assumed till 2 working days later, Tuesday 12th. Have a look at the back of the NTK. If PE think there is keeper liability then there will be mention of POFA on the back otherwise it will be silent.

If it is silent then a simple BOGOFF telling them they've missed the post, go chase the driver.


Unfortunately I'd already admitted I was the driver before I discovered this forum.

Here's the back of the PCN

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kommando
post Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 12:24
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,624
Joined: 6 Oct 2012
Member No.: 57,558



Yep, they knew there was no keeper liability but still tried it on.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ManxRed
post Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 12:32
Post #40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,677
Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Member No.: 21,992



The OP has already admitted they were driving, so this is all moot.


--------------------
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

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: Saturday, 24th February 2018 - 17:50
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.