This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I am in the process of disputing a Parking Invoice with a company called Parking Eye, and they are really p1ssing me off with threatening to take me to court, even though they refuse to follow their own appeals process.
I would like to know how I can tell them that I will be invoicing them for any future letters that I send them as a result of any letters that I have to reply to from them?
I also want to know how I can take the fekers to court and demand this money for my invoices?
One very p1ssed off rodent.
I would like to know how I can tell them that I will be invoicing them for any future letters that I send them as a result of any letters that I have to reply to from them?
I also want to know how I can take the fekers to court and demand this money for my invoices?
One very p1ssed off rodent.
In reply to The Lemming:
write your letter as normal, and add a final paragraph along the lines of 'Finally, please find enclosed my invoices for time spent dealing with this matter, which I'm sure you will settle in due course*.'
after your Signature, etc, add
*Please note, terms are strictly 30 days. Failure to settle your account within this time period may result in a Small Claims Court compensation claim.
write your letter as normal, and add a final paragraph along the lines of 'Finally, please find enclosed my invoices for time spent dealing with this matter, which I'm sure you will settle in due course*.'
after your Signature, etc, add
*Please note, terms are strictly 30 days. Failure to settle your account within this time period may result in a Small Claims Court compensation claim.
In reply to FrankBooth:
Just seen this, and it looks interesting.
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/laying-groundwork-prior-to-...
Just seen this, and it looks interesting.
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/laying-groundwork-prior-to-...
In reply to The Lemming:
Think there's some stuff on Money Saving Expert about this, or possibly read it in the paper recently, about some chap who did this - try googling.
Think there's some stuff on Money Saving Expert about this, or possibly read it in the paper recently, about some chap who did this - try googling.
In reply to The Lemming:
Not the answer to your question but consider these points:
Do not confirm or deny who was driving.
Ask to see copies of any proof that they hold as to who was driving - any claim can only be pursued against the driver (who may not be the owner).
If they then ask for you to tell them who the driver was ask under what legal authority they are asking for this under.
Not the answer to your question but consider these points:
Do not confirm or deny who was driving.
Ask to see copies of any proof that they hold as to who was driving - any claim can only be pursued against the driver (who may not be the owner).
If they then ask for you to tell them who the driver was ask under what legal authority they are asking for this under.
In reply to The Lemming: OK, the very best advice I can give you is register here www.pepipoo.com
...and ask for advice. Telling them you're going to charge them is pointless, because you won't. Telling them to piss off because thir invoices are speculative rubbish is better. I have sent these idiots packing a number of times. You will get excellent advice on there from excellent people.
...and ask for advice. Telling them you're going to charge them is pointless, because you won't. Telling them to piss off because thir invoices are speculative rubbish is better. I have sent these idiots packing a number of times. You will get excellent advice on there from excellent people.
In reply to The Lemming:
The bank made an error with my account once. I rang them and no-one answered within about 10 rings, so I thought "I know!". I put the 'phone down, wrote them a letter advising them of the mistake, and invoicing them £10 for writing the letter (mirroring the wording on their letters to me).
The manager called, apologised for the mistake and said she'd put it right. I said "OK, what about crediting my account with my £10 charge for writing the letter?" She was a little unforthcoming at first, but then agreed, saying "If you have a problem like this again, no need to write, just give us a call", to which I, of course, replied "OK, and if I ever go overdrawn again, no need to write, just give me a ring..."
The bank made an error with my account once. I rang them and no-one answered within about 10 rings, so I thought "I know!". I put the 'phone down, wrote them a letter advising them of the mistake, and invoicing them £10 for writing the letter (mirroring the wording on their letters to me).
The manager called, apologised for the mistake and said she'd put it right. I said "OK, what about crediting my account with my £10 charge for writing the letter?" She was a little unforthcoming at first, but then agreed, saying "If you have a problem like this again, no need to write, just give us a call", to which I, of course, replied "OK, and if I ever go overdrawn again, no need to write, just give me a ring..."
In reply to The Lemming:
And don't forget the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Basically, they're generally a bunch of opportunists, trying it on, so repeated contact with you comes under this spectacularly misused piece of legislation.
Plus the above-mentioned website.
And don't forget the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Basically, they're generally a bunch of opportunists, trying it on, so repeated contact with you comes under this spectacularly misused piece of legislation.
Plus the above-mentioned website.
In reply to PanzerHanzler:
This is no longer true - claims can be made against the registered keeper if they are unwilling to reveal the identity of the driver.
> Ask to see copies of any proof that they hold as to who was driving - any claim can only be pursued against the driver (who may not be the owner).
This is no longer true - claims can be made against the registered keeper if they are unwilling to reveal the identity of the driver.
In reply to The Lemming:
They can’t take everybody to court. Of all the 1.8m tickets issued by all private parking companies in 2011, only 49 were heard in court. That’s 0.003%. It costs them much more than the damages to issue the court proceedings and overall they’ve got a pretty poor success rate, less than 50/50 for sure. So you’ve got to be pretty unlucky and pretty unprepared to end up having to pay them.
The more people refuse to pay and insist on being heard in court, the less profitable this racket will be and the people at Parking Eye can go back to crafting rings from the fires of mount doom or whatever they did before.
(Google C&P)
They can’t take everybody to court. Of all the 1.8m tickets issued by all private parking companies in 2011, only 49 were heard in court. That’s 0.003%. It costs them much more than the damages to issue the court proceedings and overall they’ve got a pretty poor success rate, less than 50/50 for sure. So you’ve got to be pretty unlucky and pretty unprepared to end up having to pay them.
The more people refuse to pay and insist on being heard in court, the less profitable this racket will be and the people at Parking Eye can go back to crafting rings from the fires of mount doom or whatever they did before.
(Google C&P)
You can't invoice them for your time for exactly the reason they can't "fine" you.
You or they would need a contract for the work, then an invoice, then you have a requirement to pay.
Unless they can prove that the owner of the vehicle was the driver on the day, and that they did enter into a contract, then they can't sue for breach. If they can, then they can only claim fair payment, eg if parking is £10 / day after 2 hours free then they can't fine you £100 / day.
You or they would need a contract for the work, then an invoice, then you have a requirement to pay.
Unless they can prove that the owner of the vehicle was the driver on the day, and that they did enter into a contract, then they can't sue for breach. If they can, then they can only claim fair payment, eg if parking is £10 / day after 2 hours free then they can't fine you £100 / day.
In reply to The Lemming:
In Preston there is a small small shopping park that is controlled by parking eye. Last year I got caught out and I got a fine. I stayed in the car park longer than I should have done so it was my fault. The signs were clearly visible giving information regarding the length of time that I could park for free. I overran the stated time, I got a fine and I paid it, it was my fault. So what is your problem?
In Preston there is a small small shopping park that is controlled by parking eye. Last year I got caught out and I got a fine. I stayed in the car park longer than I should have done so it was my fault. The signs were clearly visible giving information regarding the length of time that I could park for free. I overran the stated time, I got a fine and I paid it, it was my fault. So what is your problem?
In reply to The Lemming:
Strange comment! I know you are pissed off but didn't you make it everyone on here's business by starting this thread?
> My problem is non of your business.
Strange comment! I know you are pissed off but didn't you make it everyone on here's business by starting this thread?
In reply to Trangia:
It depends? He's asking for advice on how to invoice them, rather than whether Parking Eye are in the right...
> Strange comment! I know you are pissed off but didn't you make it everyone on here's business by starting this thread?
It depends? He's asking for advice on how to invoice them, rather than whether Parking Eye are in the right...
Post edited at 16:07
In reply to Submit to Gravity:
...
Did YOU go overdrawn, or did the bank make an error with your account?
> The bank made an error with my account once.
...
> replied "OK, and if I ever go overdrawn again
Did YOU go overdrawn, or did the bank make an error with your account?
In reply to icnoble:
In reply to icnoble: So you were dumb enough to pay an unenforcable parking fine and now you think it's a good idea to tell everyone. These companies rely on people like you, so well done.
> In Preston there is a small small shopping park that is controlled by parking eye. Last year I got caught out and I got a fine. I stayed in the car park longer than I should have done so it was my fault. The signs were clearly visible giving information regarding the length of time that I could park for free. I overran the stated time, I got a fine and I paid it, it was my fault. So what is your problem?
In reply to icnoble: So you were dumb enough to pay an unenforcable parking fine and now you think it's a good idea to tell everyone. These companies rely on people like you, so well done.
In reply to Blue Straggler:
I had, in the past, gone overdrawn and received the full force of the bank's punitive charges which calculate out to payday-loan rates of interest.
On this occasion, I took out a loan, which they treated as a current account which was overdrawn, and sent me a letter telling me so, with the normal fees charged.
> ...
> Did YOU go overdrawn, or did the bank make an error with your account?
I had, in the past, gone overdrawn and received the full force of the bank's punitive charges which calculate out to payday-loan rates of interest.
On this occasion, I took out a loan, which they treated as a current account which was overdrawn, and sent me a letter telling me so, with the normal fees charged.
In reply to Frank the Husky:
So you were dumb enough to pay an unenforcable parking fine and now you think it's a good idea to tell everyone. These companies rely on people like you, so well done.
The easiest solution is to bring back clamping.
So you were dumb enough to pay an unenforcable parking fine and now you think it's a good idea to tell everyone. These companies rely on people like you, so well done.
The easiest solution is to bring back clamping.
In reply to FactorXXX: Brilliant, I love these lazy comments.
1) What is clamping a solution to?
2) Why is clamping the easiest solution to whatever you're on about?
1) What is clamping a solution to?
2) Why is clamping the easiest solution to whatever you're on about?
In reply to Frank the Husky:
An absence of clamping.
Clamping happens. (:O))
...Life's too short for hard hitting or pointed questions on UKC
> Brilliant, I love these lazy comments.
> 1) What is clamping a solution to?
An absence of clamping.
> 2) Why is clamping the easiest solution to whatever you're on about?
Clamping happens. (:O))
...Life's too short for hard hitting or pointed questions on UKC
Post edited at 19:05
In reply to Frank the Husky:
1) What is clamping a solution to?
People abusing a service and not paying fines.
2) Why is clamping the easiest solution to whatever you're on about?
It is an easy way to stop people abusing the service in the first place.
To expand on the above.
When clamping was removed, a new law/regulation was established, in that the enforcer no longer had to prove who had parked. The required payment/charge was automatically passed onto the registered owner of the vehicle.
That is a good compromise for all concerned - the driver isn't inconvenienced and in theory, the parking provider should get payment for misuse of their property as there is no longer the argument of "I wasn't driving"...
However, people too readily abuse the provided parking service, in the full knowledge that the 'fines' aren't enforceable.
People are quite happy to park in, what is in essence a private business car park, hop on a train/lift share to work, etc. When they get back, they just laugh at the ticket and the ensuing letters.
No matter how you dress it up and hide behind loop holes, you are still using someone's private property against their will.
Saying that, there is no doubt that the Parking companies are perhaps over zealous and that the charges are maybe too much.
I personally think that the non-payment loop hole should be closed, but the charges should be less.
1) What is clamping a solution to?
People abusing a service and not paying fines.
2) Why is clamping the easiest solution to whatever you're on about?
It is an easy way to stop people abusing the service in the first place.
To expand on the above.
When clamping was removed, a new law/regulation was established, in that the enforcer no longer had to prove who had parked. The required payment/charge was automatically passed onto the registered owner of the vehicle.
That is a good compromise for all concerned - the driver isn't inconvenienced and in theory, the parking provider should get payment for misuse of their property as there is no longer the argument of "I wasn't driving"...
However, people too readily abuse the provided parking service, in the full knowledge that the 'fines' aren't enforceable.
People are quite happy to park in, what is in essence a private business car park, hop on a train/lift share to work, etc. When they get back, they just laugh at the ticket and the ensuing letters.
No matter how you dress it up and hide behind loop holes, you are still using someone's private property against their will.
Saying that, there is no doubt that the Parking companies are perhaps over zealous and that the charges are maybe too much.
I personally think that the non-payment loop hole should be closed, but the charges should be less.
In reply to The Lemming:
The problem is that there is no legal mechanism for private land to charge car parking fees, or rather to enforce these with fines.
The current argument is that the car parking fee is £100, reduced to £3/hour or whatever if you pay immediately. Ignoring the fact that this is clearly nonsense, what is to stop a private parking company deciding that parking on their land is charged at £1000 an hour?
That said you equally can't randomly invoice companies for sending you letters - you can only claim for actual loss (i.e. the minimal amount of time you spend binning them).
If you want parking fines to be enforceable then you would need to create specific legislation permitting it AND give a definition of what is a reasonable 'fine' (it won't really be a fine of course since it is a private civil matter). Under the current system, where they can only charge for loss, you can't effectively police your private parking. It should be noted that in general penalty charge notices (i.e. real parking fines) are generally quite a bit lower than the made up charges of PPCs...
The problem is that there is no legal mechanism for private land to charge car parking fees, or rather to enforce these with fines.
The current argument is that the car parking fee is £100, reduced to £3/hour or whatever if you pay immediately. Ignoring the fact that this is clearly nonsense, what is to stop a private parking company deciding that parking on their land is charged at £1000 an hour?
That said you equally can't randomly invoice companies for sending you letters - you can only claim for actual loss (i.e. the minimal amount of time you spend binning them).
If you want parking fines to be enforceable then you would need to create specific legislation permitting it AND give a definition of what is a reasonable 'fine' (it won't really be a fine of course since it is a private civil matter). Under the current system, where they can only charge for loss, you can't effectively police your private parking. It should be noted that in general penalty charge notices (i.e. real parking fines) are generally quite a bit lower than the made up charges of PPCs...
In reply to FactorXXX: That's much better, something worth responding to. The thing is, that clamping was a disaster. Damaged cars, fist fights, and some pretty nasty people engaged in the business. I remember my dad being pushed to the ground (in front of a policeman) by one of these guys...so they get no hugs from me.
These private companies like Parking Eye were still playing their games when clamping was going on, now they just have a wider field of play.
Perhaps the better solution is not "parking enforcement" but something practiced in some European capitals and some cities in the US: "arking assistance". Instead of handing out fines, some guy comes along and tells people where there are parking spaces and everyone gets on far better. Shops get more business, and more people are smiling.
These private companies like Parking Eye were still playing their games when clamping was going on, now they just have a wider field of play.
Perhaps the better solution is not "parking enforcement" but something practiced in some European capitals and some cities in the US: "arking assistance". Instead of handing out fines, some guy comes along and tells people where there are parking spaces and everyone gets on far better. Shops get more business, and more people are smiling.
In reply to Frank the Husky:
Instead of handing out fines, some guy comes along and tells people where there are parking spaces and everyone gets on far better. Shops get more business, and more people are smiling.
Does that mean, that the 'Parking Assistant' could stop you parking, if it was ascertained that you had no right to park there?
If so, what powers would they actually have to stop someone?
Instead of handing out fines, some guy comes along and tells people where there are parking spaces and everyone gets on far better. Shops get more business, and more people are smiling.
Does that mean, that the 'Parking Assistant' could stop you parking, if it was ascertained that you had no right to park there?
If so, what powers would they actually have to stop someone?
In reply to Frank the Husky:
Eh? What you say is true, but you seem to be coming at this from a point of view that parking is some sort of human right. Surely it is reasonable for charging someone to park and similarly, it is reasonable to charge them extra (fine them) if they use the parking bay longer than they said they would?
Obviously parking companies have taken the p1ss but now that much of this has been redressed does that automatically give the motorist the right to also take the p1ss?
> In reply to icnoble: So you were dumb enough to pay an unenforcable parking fine and now you think it's a good idea to tell everyone. These companies rely on people like you, so well done.
Eh? What you say is true, but you seem to be coming at this from a point of view that parking is some sort of human right. Surely it is reasonable for charging someone to park and similarly, it is reasonable to charge them extra (fine them) if they use the parking bay longer than they said they would?
Obviously parking companies have taken the p1ss but now that much of this has been redressed does that automatically give the motorist the right to also take the p1ss?
In reply to icnoble:
They have no legal right to 'fine' you. They invoiced you for a service, I would have disputed the invoice.
They have no legal right to 'fine' you. They invoiced you for a service, I would have disputed the invoice.
In reply to The New NickB:
I am in dispute of the Invoice. So far ParkingEye have ignored my legitimate appeal. However for some strange reason, they have taken my most recent letter more seriously. This has probably something to do with sending it Recorded Delivery, rather than Proof of Postage, and threatening to claim all expenses incurred including legal fees.
I'm taking this all the way.
> They have no legal right to 'fine' you. They invoiced you for a service, I would have disputed the invoice.
I am in dispute of the Invoice. So far ParkingEye have ignored my legitimate appeal. However for some strange reason, they have taken my most recent letter more seriously. This has probably something to do with sending it Recorded Delivery, rather than Proof of Postage, and threatening to claim all expenses incurred including legal fees.
I'm taking this all the way.
In reply to The Lemming:
They probably won't bother though, which take all the fun out of it.
> I'm taking this all the way.
>
They probably won't bother though, which take all the fun out of it.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...