PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

ParkingEye - Bradford Forster Square, No help needed - just more info for the site!
Mosh
post Sat, 24 Apr 2010 - 18:19
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 24 Apr 2010
From: Scotland
Member No.: 37,111



Guys/Gals,

I've got all the info I think I need from this site (to whit - ignore them), but I just thought I'd pop up the details so that someone else looking for info may have more chance of finding it with certain keywords.

I visited some friends in Bradford a couple of weeks ago and parked the car in the Forster Square retail park, which I used to use years ago. Only, according to the letter I received recently, it now has a 3-hour maximum parking time. News to me.

As soon as I opened the letter and checked it, I rang one of my mates down there who uses the car park regularly. He didn't know about the limit and couldn't remember ever seeing a sign. I rang another couple and they said they knew there was a limit of two hours (it's actually now three), and they only knew about it as they'd been warned when it was initially put in place. Lots of footie fans used to use it on a match day as it's not far from the ground - this was the basis for the warning. They did say there was a sign... but for the life of themselves couldn't think where it was.

I did a quick Google and found two stories from the local paper. One about a woman who'd parked there, left, come back and been fined. She even got pictures from the CCTV of the other car park she went to which proved that she had left and returned. Excel (as it was - now ParkingEye) refused to accept this and said they'd pursue her. Guess what? They never did.

Link to T & A story

The other story was about the changeover from Excel to ParkingEye. This was the tail end of 2009 and when the parking time was increased from 2 to 3 hours. Apparently the old company was ticketing people who parked then walked into town, arguing the car park was only for people using the shops on the retail park. Not the case according to the planning permission documents from 1990. All of those fines were (apparently) "revisited". I wonder how many people got refunded?

Link to story

Anyway, I've got the usual £50 unless I pay up in a few days letter. Then it's £80. Then it's £110 + "liability for further charges". The terminology on the letter is dodgy, as others have pointed out.

"We are happy to provide parking facilities for legitimate customers". Well, as the story above tells us, this is irrelevant. You don't have to be a customer of the stores to park there.

"...limited to the period clearly displayed at the entrance(s) of and around the car parks." Obviously generic as there's only one entrance. As stated above, I didn't see a sign. A local who uses the car park several times a week hasn't seen one. Hardly "clearly displayed", then. Let's be honest - if I had known there was a time limit of 3 hours, I'd not have parked there for 6 would I?

"On the specified date, you were the owner, keeper or driver of the vehicle in question, as such, there is a responsibility to ensure that the terms and conditions for parking, as set down and clearly displayed on the signage in the car park, are complied with." Which, according to the many posts I've seen on here, is complete pants. I may *not* have been the keeper, owner, *or* driver. Transfer of ownership of the vehicle may have taken place shortly before the "offence", meaning that ownership documentation had been in the post and the DVLA system not updated. This could actually very nearly have happened as I only took ownership of the vehicle from my mother a few days previous!

I notice the phone number to contact these rip-off merchants is an 0844 one. Further *kerching*. And also a "small processing charge will be made for any Debit/Credit card transactions". Is this "small" as in "Ryanair small", I wonder?

The thing is, I did actually buy something at one of the stores. I then wandered elsewhere, bought a similar item for less and returned the the TX Maxx for a refund. As such I do have two transactions a couple of hours apart that would support a claim of leaving the car park and returning later... but at the advice of the people on there I will not do so. I'll just shove the letter in a corner and wait for the next one.

And the next.

Maybe the next.

Then the lovely silence afterwards when they realise I'm not being intimidated.

I'll gladly post follow ups with any forthcoming communications as I get them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 13)
Advertisement
post Sat, 24 Apr 2010 - 18:19
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
muckychimney
post Sat, 24 Apr 2010 - 22:38
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,312
Joined: 5 May 2007
From: ooot int sticks
Member No.: 11,891



thumbsup.gif you got it in one


--------------------
Images hosted by imageshack.com
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bama
post Sun, 25 Apr 2010 - 10:23
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,928
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Member No.: 4,323



Seconded.

Yet another Excel ANPR 'problem/mistake/error'.
You would think they would have fixed that after Atwood got his bottom smacked over Excel's ANPR....


--------------------
Which facts in any situation or problem are “essential” and what makes them “essential”? If the “essential” facts are said to depend on the principles involved, then the whole business, all too obviously, goes right around in a circle. In the light of one principle or set of principles, one bunch of facts will be the “essential” ones; in the light of another principle or set of principles, a different bunch of facts will be “essential.” In order to settle on the right facts you first have to pick your principles, although the whole point of finding the facts was to indicate which principles apply.

Note that I am not legally qualified and any and all statements made are "Reserved". Liability for application lies with the reader.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mosh
post Sat, 1 May 2010 - 17:10
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 24 Apr 2010
From: Scotland
Member No.: 37,111



Second letter has arrived. I'm not sure when it got there, as - I think I mentioned - I'm living away from home as a student right now.

The first thing that struck me as strange was that the charge should now be £80 as I didn't respond within a few days of getting the original letter. Only it's not. It is *still* £50 if I pay within 4 days of *this* letter. In other words, the box-out with the charges has just been copy/pasted from the first letter.

What has changed is that there is now one box with two pictures. One of my car entering and one leaving. Helpfully they've enlarged the numberplate on both as, frankly, it's unreadable on either original picture.

Underneath this is more pseudo-legal bull-poop.

"As the owner, keeper or driver of the vehicle in question, the Parking Charge [love the capitals] that we wrote to you about is still outstanding. The vehicle is shown above, and is accurately times both entering and leaving the car park in question, proving that the maxiumum time limit for parking within the car park has been exceeded. Please make immediate arrangements to pay the Parking Charge to avoid further increase. If payment is not received we may pursue this matter through the appropriate channels."

Well, as I've already stated they have already failed to increase the charges despite saying they would on the letter.

In addition, as I have discovered from reading this board, "appropriate channels" consists of sending me more letters and trying to threaten me. This *is* the only "appropriate" channel as they have no legal ones which they can pursue.

Incidentally, I'm leaving the country in about 4 weeks. Wonder how they'd deal with that?

Updates as and when.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bama
post Sat, 1 May 2010 - 17:19
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,928
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Member No.: 4,323



goodness their text is bad. very poor English and about as convincing as Gordon Broon.


--------------------
Which facts in any situation or problem are “essential” and what makes them “essential”? If the “essential” facts are said to depend on the principles involved, then the whole business, all too obviously, goes right around in a circle. In the light of one principle or set of principles, one bunch of facts will be the “essential” ones; in the light of another principle or set of principles, a different bunch of facts will be “essential.” In order to settle on the right facts you first have to pick your principles, although the whole point of finding the facts was to indicate which principles apply.

Note that I am not legally qualified and any and all statements made are "Reserved". Liability for application lies with the reader.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dave-o
post Thu, 6 May 2010 - 15:58
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,830
Joined: 7 Jan 2008
From: London
Member No.: 16,454



Ignore the next few bullshit letters you will get

That'll be the end of it.
Reason for edit: Reference to deleted trolling removed


--------------------
Dave-o 3-0 LB Waltham Forest.
Goalscorers: B. Alighting 08', G. Fettered 34', I. Markings 42'


Dave-o 2-0 LB Islington
Goalscorers: V. Locus 82', I. Dates, 87'
Dave-o 1-0 LB Redbridge
Goalscorer: I. Markings 79'


Dave-o 1-0 LB sCamden
Goalscorer: I. Dates, 86'

Dave-o 1-0 LB Hammersmith & Fulham
Goalscorer: T. Signage, 19'
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mosh
post Sun, 23 May 2010 - 22:10
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 24 Apr 2010
From: Scotland
Member No.: 37,111



The "debt collection" letter is here from "CCSCollect.co.uk Debt Collectors". As someone else pointed out elsewhere, by a remarkable coincidence they're registered at the *exact same address* as Parking Eye Ltd. What are the chances, eh?

Here goes:

QUOTE
The PARKING CHARGE incurred at FORSTER SQUARE PHASE 2 Vehicle Registration XXXXXX has not been paid. The outstanding charge as detailed above has been passed to us by our client ParkingEye. We intend to recover the full amount owed. If full payment can be made, we urge it to be done now BY RETURN.

If you pay or agree a repayment plan with us now, further action which may include legal proceedings will cease.

ParkingEye is determined to protect the interests of its client's genuine customers and their ability to park within the selected car park. Payment options are overleaf or alternatively call us now on 0844 412 0344.

ARRANGEMENTS TO PAY THE CHARGE MUST BE MADE NOW TO AVOID FURTHER ACTION.

Yours sincerely

Sam Selby
Collections Department


*sigh* As ever, letter is being ignored. I'm out of the country for the next 2 months so it's likely my mother will open the next one (if there is one) and have palpitations... Perhaps I should forewarn her that it's all so much crap before I leave!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Sun, 23 May 2010 - 22:19
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,745
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



Oh I would definitely forewarn your Mum not to panic at all if any 'debt collector' or 'solicitor' letters headed up 'Notice of Intended Litigation' or other such twaddle arrive.

Most people reading such letters would think you are going to be taken to Court, which is the intention of the letters. You must tell your Mum about the reality of the situation - you don't want her panicking and paying it!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mosh
post Tue, 15 Jun 2010 - 14:57
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 24 Apr 2010
From: Scotland
Member No.: 37,111



No worries. My dad scans my post and sends it to me if I need it - I've already forewarned them to put such bullshit communication to one side and ignore it. I'll shove the relevant mails up here once I get back if there are any. All the better for someone Googling and looking for advice.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mosh
post Thu, 21 Oct 2010 - 10:47
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 24 Apr 2010
From: Scotland
Member No.: 37,111



Several months on and I have just received a Take Down order from my ISP! I reposted the above on there a while ago.

I *had* got two random emails from a legal company asking me to get in touch "urgently" a couple of weeks ago. No indication of what it was about, so I put it down as spam.

Then I got the following this morning:

QUOTE
It has recently come to our attention that your website www.moshblog.me.uk in accordance with s.1 of the Defamation Act 1998 contains defamatory data relating to "Parking Eye" in respect of the following heading "Don't Pay Parking Charges."

This is not only against our terms and conditions (see below) but is also in breach of UK defamation Laws and various sections of the associated statute(s);

6.2

The Customer shall NOT:-

6.2.2

send, transmit, make available, copy, retransmit, broadcast or publish (whether directly or indirectly) in whatever form any data, information or contractual rights, material or statement which infringes the Intellectual Property Rights or contractual or statutory rights of and person or legal entity or the laws or statutory regulations relating to defamation, contempt, blasphemy, infringement of privacy or personal data rights and any equivalent or related laws in any territory in which they are or may be accessed or made available;


11. LIMITATION OF SERVICE

11.1

The Company shall be entitled to suspend such access to the Services as
it deems necessary by the Customer or any third party to all or any party
of the Services if the Customer is in breach of any of Clauses: 5,
6.1.4, 6.1.5, 6.1.7, 6.1.9, 6.2.2, 6.2.3, 6.2.4, 6.2.5, 6.2.6 and 12.
This Clause shall not be construed in any way as limiting the
termination rights of the Company as provided by Clause 8.

We hereby put you on notice to take action and to immediately remove the defamatory contents
by Monday 25th October 2010 at 12 noon.

Should you fail to make contact with us and take the above said action to
rectify this matter we shall have no alternative other than to take
action against you without any further notice which will include to shut your website.

Kind Regards,
etc


I'm staggered. I've checked the post and I don't think I've put anything in there that's defamatory. OK, so it doesn't paint ParkingEye in a good light - but it's all factual!

I've got until Oct 25th to remove the post so I'll keep it up there over the weekend and publicise it as much as possible. I might even set up a Google Blog containing nothing but the post...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bama
post Thu, 21 Oct 2010 - 11:11
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,928
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Member No.: 4,323



have they quoted the exact text alleged 'defamatory comments' to which they allude ?

if not then ask them to smile.gif

This post has been edited by bama: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 - 11:13


--------------------
Which facts in any situation or problem are “essential” and what makes them “essential”? If the “essential” facts are said to depend on the principles involved, then the whole business, all too obviously, goes right around in a circle. In the light of one principle or set of principles, one bunch of facts will be the “essential” ones; in the light of another principle or set of principles, a different bunch of facts will be “essential.” In order to settle on the right facts you first have to pick your principles, although the whole point of finding the facts was to indicate which principles apply.

Note that I am not legally qualified and any and all statements made are "Reserved". Liability for application lies with the reader.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Alexis
post Thu, 21 Oct 2010 - 12:32
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,151
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
From: Manchester
Member No.: 15,638



Name and shame this ISP!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mosh
post Thu, 21 Oct 2010 - 17:24
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 24 Apr 2010
From: Scotland
Member No.: 37,111



Folks, the host (not "ISP" - that's who you access the internet through. Sorry - professional geek!) is One and One, and they've been pretty good to me so far.

However, I have just dropped them a pretty long email asking them for all the information required and a "stay of execution" until Nov 4th - 14 days as required by default under Civil Procedure Rules.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mosh
post Sun, 24 Oct 2010 - 23:38
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 24 Apr 2010
From: Scotland
Member No.: 37,111



Blog post updated at the original address to reflect the take-down order.

Anyone know a good libel lawyer?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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, 17th April 2021 - 05:36
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.