Wednesday, 23 September 2015

ParkingEye have not heard the word on the street. Another claim cancelled.

ParkingEye have apparently not heard the word on the street that the Supreme Court will rule in their favour on October 21, as they have discontinued another claim.

The Prankster first reported on the claim in May, when it was stayed to await the result of the Beavis Appeal.

ParkingEye then wrote to the defendant on September 15th, offering to settle for £60.

Seven days later they wrote again, cancelling the charge.

The defendant had previously informed ParkingEye that they were not the driver and that the driver lived in the UAE. ParkingEye replied that as they could not chase the driver they would take action against the keeper instead. They also lied to the court in the first hearing, stating that no contact had been made by the defendant.

The defence was based on the level on parking charge being too high, and that the keeper was not the driver and ParkingEye had previously been informed of this.

The Prankster presumes that the 'word on the street' was actually planted by ParkingEye's representatives, LPC Law, in a hope that cases would not be stayed until the Supreme Court verdict.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster



    And another.

  2. Not sure that I understand the logic. If PE 'planted' the word on the street to avoid cases being stayed, why would they then discontinue the claim?

    If their tactic is to avoid it being stayed that means they want it to be heard not discontinued...?

  3. Because the 'planting the word' happened some months ago. No idea why they are now starting to discontinue. Seems a bizarre tactic to me. Perhaps they are picking cases where they think they will lose, or where they cannot get a lawyer for the day, or in courts where judges rule against them

  4. lol parking eye should have taken my offer to pay £2 (cost of parking)when i offered it before we went into court...hope lots more people get the same result as me

  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

  6. The "word on the street" is a bit of a misnomer,
    It can't have come down from the SC. I would think that their Lordships are fully aware of rumour-mongering and any suggested decision before the actual announcement.
    I cannot for the life of me understand why a county court judge has mentioned this anyway. If he was "aware" of the result by way of gossip he shouldn't have mentioned it, nor should he have mentioned it if he DID actually know the result.
    It all seems a little too suspicious and probably has more to do with back-room chat in the law offices and courtroom canteen than any known result.
    As long as PE keep dropping cases rather than staying them it gives us a glimmer of light as they most certainly wouldn't want to drop a case if they were likely to be given the result in their favour.

    Of course, this case is in our own high spot, being campaigners against the PPC's but it has little UK-wide general interest so it's possibly being exaggerated. There's also the point that the Makdeshi case was heard alongside Beavis so it's entirely possible that they may have found for one but against for another.

  7. Judges should keep gossip to themselves.

  8. We beat ParkingEye!! A well worded letter following a fine threat from PE resulted in a letter from PE informing us they were not pursuing our case. The letter is pasted below. Use as much of it or as little as you like. I think quoting the judgement may have helped. Huge thanks to The Parking Prankster who's site gave us hope when we felt we were going to be stung for £60 or even £100 if we pursued a complaint.

    Dear Sir/ Madam
    We were very disappointed to receive a fine in the post from Parking Eye Ltd on our return from holiday. Your photographs suggest we were only 14 minutes late when we had paid for 8 hours, a nominal amount of time in consideration of the amount of time paid for, although there are also issues with your method of calculation.
    It is reasonable for customers to assume that when purchasing a ticket with a time printed on it, that this is the actual time from which the payment begins. By instead charging from when the car arrives, especially when the ticketed time can be several minutes later than the entrance time, Parking Eye’s policy is both confusing and misleading.
    When we arrived at your car park we were faced with a delay before parking as the car park was busy. We purchased a ticket at 11.08am and reasonably assumed this to be the time at which the 8 hours paid for began. We then enjoyed a fabulous walk up and most of the way down Snowdon. As we passed the half-way point my daughter began to complain of a sore ankle which slowed us considerably and it became apparent that we were going to be tight for time. Ultimately I decided to leave my wife and children at the beginning of the road and run the final kilometre or so, returning with the car to collect them.
    To have been photographed leaving your car park at 7.16pm I must have arrived back in your car park at approximately 7.14pm. This was therefore only 6 minutes later than the time we believed the ticket we had purchased covered.
    I can accept that I returned to the car park late, although less than 10 minutes so, and I feel that a fine for such a small amount of time when 8 hours has been paid for is unreasonable, unwarranted and excessive. It was clear from our actions – paying for 8 hours parking to cover a 6 hour walk – that there was no intention of avoiding parking charges
    A charge of £100 or even £60 seems exceptionally high and not a ‘genuine pre-estimate of loss’, as cited in numerous cases of this kind when appeals against these charges have gone to court.
    The excessive nature of this fine is also evidenced by court cases. If I can draw your attention to the case of Mr Fergus Cargius, and Parking Eye’s case to claim £100 and, in particular, the Judge’s ruling.
    In her ruling District Judge C Mahy said, “The fact is that Parking Eye could have been quite satisfied if Mr Cargius had paid a further £2 and the subsequent charge of £100 is in my judgement totally disproportionate to the level of Parking Eye’s loss. “
    “It is in my judgement a penalty and therefore unenforceable in this case.”
    Mr Fergus was 1 hour 23 minutes late due to an injury, while we were arguably only 6 minutes or at worst only 14 minutes late. I enclose cheque for £10 and trust you agree that this constitutes a generous settlement in light of the case above.
    It would be expensive and unnecessary for this situation to proceed to POPLA, or even the Small Claims Court, so I trust you will accept our settlement offer.
    Yours faithfully