Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: PCN from Parking Eye, Aberystwyth
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
scrumble
I've recently recived a PCN through the post from a company called Parking eye. For the most part, thanks to this site, I know how I'll handle it, but I'm just curious about a few things.

From what I've read the BPA's guidelines state that any invoice must make it clear that the drivder is responsible, whereas the invoice I've recieved says "On the specified dae, you where the owner, keeper, or driver of the vehicle in question, as such, there is a responsibility to esure that the terms....... are complied with". It seems to me that this falls foul of the BPA guidelines as it doesn't state its purely the repsonisibility of the driver.

Also I didn't have a ticket on the vehicle at the time of the of the alleged contravention, which means that I didn't have opportunity to examine and photograph any signage at the car park at that time to argue my case, and as it is now two weeks later they could easily have installed new signs. Would that help my case if they bother to try and take this further?

Thanks
DBC
I wouldn't bother about all those "technicalities". This will not go any further apart from some more meaningless letters from the company. Just ignore, but file those letters away in a safe place. Parking Eye don't do court.

As for the BPA, don't forget they are just a trade organization, not an official body, and their "guidelines" are pretty worthless in the real world.

Gan
You can safely ignore this. Except for a few letters, Parking Eye won't do anything.

Not surprising you had no ticket. Their system is :

1 Land-owner takes photo of your car and sends it to parking Eye.
2 Parking Eye gets your details from DVLA and sends the (unenforceable) invoice.
3 The land-owner gets a commission if you pay.



As DBC has already replied - Parking Eye don't do court.

dave-o
Parking Eye are one of the more technical, but ultimately toothless, operators. You will get the standard letter chain and then they will stop bothering you. Ignore everything.

Forum advice:

When dealing with "tickets" from private parking companies (PPCs) our advice is to ignore them. For more information about this recommendation and private parking companies, click this link.
Alexis
QUOTE
From what I've read the BPA's guidelines state that any invoice must make it clear that the drivder is responsible, whereas the invoice I've recieved says "On the specified dae, you where the owner, keeper, or driver of the vehicle in question, as such, there is a responsibility to esure that the terms....... are complied with". It seems to me that this falls foul of the BPA guidelines as it doesn't state its purely the repsonisibility of the driver.


The 2006 Fraud Act has more teeth than the BPA's claptrap.

Sending letters telling someone they HAVE to pay something they don't is very naughty.

Spitfire_55
QUOTE (Gan @ Tue, 6 Apr 2010 - 07:30) *
You can safely ignore this. Except for a few letters, Parking Eye won't do anything.

Not surprising you had no ticket. Their system is :

1 Land-owner takes photo of your car and sends it to parking Eye.
2 Parking Eye gets your details from DVLA and sends the (unenforceable) invoice.
3 The land-owner gets a commission if you pay.



As DBC has already replied - Parking Eye don't do court.


at my Local Parking Eye Car Park - they have ANPR systems on the entrance-exit to monitor cars going in and out

EDIT - Like These :

scrumble
Had a second set of letters from Parking Eye last Thursday. One in Welsh, and the other in English and Welsh.

The guy I work for is an Ex-traffic cop, and is a Magistrate, so I figured I'd get his angle on this. He seemed to think that the photos of my car entering and leaving would be enough to prove that I am liable, that is was 50% proof that I had parked the car there, he also seemed to think that as the owner I was liable and that I had to name the driver, even though I pointed out that it was contractual law and that it wasn't a parking offence we where discussing. I was slightly surprised by his idea that '50% proof' would be enough, as I can't imagine that that kind of thinking would see anyone found guilty of any offence, let alone liable for a parking invoice.
Gan
The burden of proof in civil claims is 51%. BUT

Doesn't change the fact that a "contract" formed by a driver is not binding on the registered keeper.
Doesn't change the fact that you are under no obligation to disclose the identity of the driver.
Doesn't change the fact that Parking Eye are only an agent of the land-owner. Agents cannot usually take legal action in their own name.
Doesn't change the fact that the sum is a penalty and not enforceable.

Ask yourself a question. If the burden of proof is only 51%, why don't Parking Eye ever bring cases to court ?

scrumble
Thanks Gan, I have no intention of naming the driver, as I honestly don't know anyway. Obviously and ex-traffic cop is going to lean towards the claimant, but I don't think it helped when I kept countering his arguments, thanks to what I've read on here lol


Just had an interesting read of this blog: http://blog.azazil.net/517-illegal-parking-charges.html

I particularly like this bit:

"Furthermore, your conduct in this instance is in direct breach of the DVLA
code of conduct pertaining to the enforcement of parking restrictions on
private land. Specifically, point 3.2 of the code states:- “Notices giving
full details of the parking contravention and the proposed course of action
to be taken by the enforcer should be placed in a prominent position on the
offending vehicle without causing it damage. Vehicle keepers should be made
aware that their name and address will be requested from the DVLA”. No such
notice was ever placed on my vehicle but you clearly obtained those private
details from the DVLA without my prior knowledge in order to send your PCN
to my registered address. Under these circumstances I am considering
writing a strong letter of complaint to the DVLA regarding your abuse of
their system. If pressed they may decide to withdraw your company’s right
to obtain vehicle keeper information."


Another point well made is in a comment on that page:

"The DVLA are in contravention of data protection rules giving out Keeper details unless a civil breach of contract or trespass has been committed by the KEEPER of a vehicle. Since the driver will in many cases not be the keeper personal details of the keeper are being released illegally. Its a cash cow for DVLA who charge for this service and they are facilitating an illegal racket. My local MP is helping me stir it up at DVLA."
Alexis
QUOTE
The guy I work for is an Ex-traffic cop, and is a Magistrate, so I figured I'd get his angle on this. He seemed to think that the photos of my car entering and leaving would be enough to prove that I am liable, that is was 50% proof that I had parked the car there, he also seemed to think that as the owner I was liable and that I had to name the driver, even though I pointed out that it was contractual law and that it wasn't a parking offence we where discussing. I was slightly surprised by his idea that '50% proof' would be enough, as I can't imagine that that kind of thinking would see anyone found guilty of any offence, let alone liable for a parking invoice.


Scary. Print this case out and give it to him for some bedtime reading: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=9775
Gan
QUOTE (Alexis @ Mon, 12 Apr 2010 - 19:35) *
QUOTE
The guy I work for is an Ex-traffic cop, and is a Magistrate, so I figured I'd get his angle on this. He seemed to think that the photos of my car entering and leaving would be enough to prove that I am liable, that is was 50% proof that I had parked the car there, he also seemed to think that as the owner I was liable and that I had to name the driver, even though I pointed out that it was contractual law and that it wasn't a parking offence we where discussing. I was slightly surprised by his idea that '50% proof' would be enough, as I can't imagine that that kind of thinking would see anyone found guilty of any offence, let alone liable for a parking invoice.


Scary. Print this case out and give it to him for some bedtime reading: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=9775


What a textbook example of a reasoned and clearly presented argument.
jufair
To save all this bother, do not contact these people at all, and get on with your life.
Rebel
I work in Aberystwyth at the weekends...there is only 2 parking eye sites i know of which are the maccy d's and the argos/iceland/lidl retail park.

The retail park has recently swapped parking companies in the last year or so for god only knows what reason and at the maccy d's the staff themselves are scared to park there as a few of them got fined and stupidly paid them...and thats only happened in the last year as well

As its free parking for both places there losses are zero/nil/£0.00 which is all they are entitled to try claiming off you if they ever did grow the balls to try a court case.

Ignore anything they send you but keep it filed...something for you to laugh at in the future.
bama
scrumble, ignore that blog, its a tad out of date and misguided.
DVLA CoP long dead.
You agree to the DVLA releasing your details when you sign the V5 - under the handily undefined 'reasonable cause'.

see this
southpaw82
QUOTE (scrumble @ Mon, 12 Apr 2010 - 18:28) *
The guy I work for is an Ex-traffic cop, and is a Magistrate, so I figured I'd get his angle on this. He seemed to think that the photos of my car entering and leaving would be enough to prove that I am liable, that is was 50% proof that I had parked the car there, he also seemed to think that as the owner I was liable and that I had to name the driver, even though I pointed out that it was contractual law and that it wasn't a parking offence we where discussing. I was slightly surprised by his idea that '50% proof' would be enough, as I can't imagine that that kind of thinking would see anyone found guilty of any offence, let alone liable for a parking invoice.


Just because he's an ex-cop and a magistrate doesn't mean he knows sweet FA about contract law... as this amply demonstrates.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.