Parkinh Eye help please **Ticket Cancelled**

[steveod]

Why should that be? The argument they are advancing is based on several cases all of which involved (on both sides) substantial, well-funded and well represented companies/organisations that all enjoyed an equality of arms and in which both sides were involved in contract negotiations and were well aware of their terms and had time to consider their dues and responsibilities.

 

That is hardly comparable with the situation the average OP here finds themselves in. Inevitably these cases involve reasonably large, well-funded organisations that by draconian means seek to impose unilateral contractual terms that are incapable of individual negotiation and in circumstances where it is doubtful, sometimes very doubtful, that a contract has been formed or even offered in the first place. There is very rarely an equality of arms.

 

Commercial justification is a somewhat euphemistic shorthand for "securing the interests of shareholders". In other words securing shareholders' financial investments and the returns on them. In the cases now being quoted by PE (One of which is the oft-quoted Lordsvale Finance v Bank of Zambia - more usually cited because of the clear definition of "penalty" provided in the judgment) the "commercial justification" was the interests of the shareholders of the parties to the litigation. However, the essential difference with PPC's cases is that the only commercial justification that can apply is that of the contractee's agent - i.e. the PPC - not that of the landowner and the offerer of the contract.

 

The so-called "modern" view, as PE's topgun would have it, is simply a spin applied to heavily commercial cases and advanced for the purposes of avoiding continued and closer examination of the far more relevant "genuine pre-estimate of lose" argument. That is aside from the fact that in attempting to side-step the argument PE threatens to breach the BPA Ltd's AOS CoP which stipulates that claims must be based on a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

 

 

PE commercial justification can be rebutted easily. I would include the following with any defense pack.

 

In E-NikLtd v Department for Communities and Local Government [2012] EWHC 3027 (Comm), Mr Justice Burton summarised that in order for apenalty clause to have commercial justification it was necessary for it to befreely negotiated between parties of comparable bargaining power.

In the case of a parking company they are not of comparable bargaining power with the ordinary driver, and it is a unilateral contract not a bilateral contract which is negotiated in any way.

[Liverpool way]

I agree with Homer................

[kirkbyinfurnesslad]

I disagree with almost everything you write, quote or advise, stop taking threads off topic and bog off back to MSE if you love it there so much

 

I have advised the OP they have the choice of ignoring or appealing and going the POPLA route which then leads to ignoring anyway after the relevent letters have been sent.

 

That is true and accurate advice borne out by my personal experience and many examples on THIS forum and the OP can make their own mind up how they choose to proceed

 

PE do not do appeals otherwise they would not present admin running costs of their 'business' as losses

 

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=82859&st=20

 

This morning another letter arrived from PE.............

 

 

*after investigating your appeal it appears that the incorrect vehicle registration was input and this has therefore resulted in the issue of the Parking Charge.

 

On this occasion as a gesture we will be cancelling this Parking Charge.*

 

Oh well the director of Heritsge Attractions will be getting my letter of complaint today but it won't hurt for him to find out what his co partners are up to will it??

 

Think that rebuts your suggestion that parking eye dont cancel tickets.

[Homer67]

That's not an appeal, that's Parking Eye admitting they ballsed up the threatening letters and knew it would go nowhere.

 

You are really struggling to justify your confusing advice for PPC invoice recipients.

[kirkbyinfurnesslad]

No.

 

The person sent an appeal to parking eye.

 

Think you are struggling to stick to the rigid ppc line

[Homer67]

Charles Caleb Colton once said "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery"

 

Coming from you it's just not the same.

 

Give me an example of an appeal that PE have 'allowed' where they haven't made a glaring great balls up and their ridiculous invoice wasn't ever going to be taken seriously

 

Go on, I dare you.

[armadillo71]

My next appeal will just be a receipt from the shop...

[kirkbyinfurnesslad]

Charles Caleb Colton once said "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery"

 

Coming from you it's just not the same.

 

Give me an example of an appeal that PE have 'allowed' where they haven't made a glaring great balls up and their ridiculous invoice wasn't ever going to be taken seriously

 

Go on, I dare you.

 

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=63245341#post63245341

 

there we go . dared

[Scouse Magic]

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=63245341#post63245341

 

there we go . dared

 

And can you show me one (Just One) of the 35 court cases you claimed to be involved with up and down the country.

 

You state you only charge for petrol but you are not a solicitor, and you have not provided anything whatsoever that has an official stamp of a court to prove your wild claims....

 

Case numbers are not enough .....please share it so everyone can see no dodgy PM's:!:

[Homer67]

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=63245341#post63245341

 

there we go . dared

 

 

Taken from that specific thread is this information from an MSE poster

 

'I suspect it was either that they ID'd you from this thread and knew they'd lose a forum-led POPLA appeal. PE have at least one staff member who reads these forums. Or they jumped because you said you were a business customer of PC World and you complained enough!'

 

I note that you are not a contributor to the thread and I am laughing out loud as I write this:

 

So the PE staff member reading MSE forums is you then!

 

You couldn't have picked a worse thread to try and prove your point - hilarious!

 

And it still doesn't prove PE allow 'appeals' unless they have clearly made a huge error as it contains no details of the 'soft appeal' whatever that is - good try but not good enough and you've been rumbled AGAIN!

[kirkbyinfurnesslad]

Lol you dont know what a soft appeal is

 

Oh yea I work for parking eye. Yes I've been rumbled. I will get back to issuing tickets then....

[Scouse Magic]

And you still have not posted any one of your claimed 35 court cases like I asked you to.....

 

Case numbers are not enough......

 

All You do Kirkby is engage in a slanging war to promote yourself which is not helpful to genuine people who seek advice, and you seem to think it is ok to slag me and others off and PM individuals to offer your services which are not proven, backed up by Mr Robbo...

 

If you have something that is beneficial other than a link to another site, let us all see it please like I was asked to do....I consider that fair !!!!!

 

Whats the excuse this time ????

[esmerobbo]

"Mr Robbo" has asked you to stop making reference to him unless you are answering something I have posted.

 

Myself and others where here fighting PPC's long before you came on this site, and long before you started making Monty Python videos taunting Roxburghe! Did you ever wonder why they decided to take you too court? Yes if backfired on them spectacularly but it still involved time and effort to resolve.

 

Now talking about adding something beneficial then why don't you lead the way, instead of just continually asking someone to prove something? Why on earth would someone purchase 35 transcripts of a case that wasn't theirs to prove a point?

 

Kirbky unlike his 2013 joining date has been here a lot longer then you realise!

 

I don't back anyone or anything up unless I see them unfairly accused of something.

 

Once again I ask you not to mention me unless you are answering something I post or something relevant to me.

Edited October 12, 2013 by esmerobbo

[Scouse Magic]

"Mr Robbo" has asked you to stop making reference to him unless you are answering something I have posted.

 

Myself and others where here fighting PPC's long before you came on this site, and long before you started making Monty Python videos taunting Roxburghe! Did you ever wonder why they decided to take you too court? Yes if backfired on them spectacularly but it still involved time and effort to resolve.

 

Now talking about adding something beneficial then why don't you lead the way, instead of just continually asking someone to prove something? Why on earth would someone purchase 35 transcripts of a case that wasn't theirs to prove a point?

 

Kirbky unlike his 2013 joining date has been here a lot longer then you realise!

 

I don't back anyone or anything up unless I see them unfairly accused of something.

 

Once again I ask you not to mention me unless you are answering something I post or something relevant to me.

 

Mr Robbo, You seem to know an awful lot about the reasons why Roxburghe took the decision they did.......Only someone close to osner would know that ???? have you something to share with us all......

 

I will never believe anything you or kirkby says without proof posted up on here......What is the big secret.....You lot demanded it from me over on another site so why should you not be held to account ??

[Old Snowy]

PE commercial justification can be rebutted easily. I would include the following with any defense pack.

 

In E-NikLtd v Department for Communities and Local Government [2012] EWHC 3027 (Comm), Mr Justice Burton summarised that in order for apenalty clause to have commercial justification it was necessary for it to befreely negotiated between parties of comparable bargaining power.

In the case of a parking company they are not of comparable bargaining power with the ordinary driver, and it is a unilateral contract not a bilateral contract which is negotiated in any way.

Thanks Steveod

 

A very useful case (and for those who wish to go straight for the relevant comments in the judgment provided in the link - para. 25 is the telling section).

This is exactly my point. This draws one to the inevitable conclusion that PE are not attempting to construct a winning argument as much as they are scrabbling around for arguments to throw up as a smokescreen hoping that defendents will be deterred. It is reasonably obvious that they simply cannot counter the genuine pre-estimate of loss argument and are intent on giving it distractive cover.

[bd1972]

Hi guys I've had a reply from PE. They ask if we can provide proof we was shopping the entire period. My in law can as she throws nothing away. So I scanned receipts from 4 stores and have emailed. Does any one know why they asked for these.

[kirkbyinfurnesslad]

Yes parking eye tend to cancel tickets if uvcan prove u shopped n over a certain amount

[Nev Met]

Yes parking eye tend to cancel tickets if uvcan prove u shopped n over a certain amount

 

That's absolutely correct, at my local Retail Park the magical 'spend amount' is £30 - PE don't like to advertise this 'genuine shopper' policy and I believe the reason is simple, the more people who are aware the more revenue they would lose.

[bd1972]

Hopefully its looking promising then as receipts totalled nearly £100.

[DBC]

That's absolutely correct, at my local Retail Park the magical 'spend amount' is £30 - PE don't like to advertise this 'genuine shopper' policy and I believe the reason is simple, the more people who are aware the more revenue they would lose.

 

Wouldn't that be classed as a "secret clause" in their T&Cs? If so, how can somebody be deemed to have agreed to them if they haven't seen it?

[Nev Met]

Wouldn't that be classed as a "secret clause" in their T&Cs? If so, how can somebody be deemed to have agreed to them if they haven't seen it?

 

Hi David,

 

Trying to find out hard facts about the mystical genuine shopper exemption is like trying to nail jelly to a wall.

 

If the genuine shopper exemption is a reality (and I believe that it is) then the details should be included on the car park signage rather than it having been omitted. It should also be included on the Notice to Keeper issued under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 rather than being omitted. It is that kind of detail on the signage/Notice to Keeper which is the information a consumer needs to take an informed transaction decision

 

[Regulation 6 of the CPUTRs might therefore apply if Parking Eye does in fact operate a "genuine shopper exemption". It is a fact that this exemption is not advertised and neither Parking Eye nor the landowner are willing to provide the details of the 'genuine shopper exemption'. When a demand for payment of a parking charge is made, by way of a Notice to Keeper, there is no mention of this "exemption". Thus the commercial operation omits this material information (see Reg 6(1)(a) or (b)). In the wording of the Regulation, that omission "causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise". That is to say, to pay the parking charge when demanded].

[ericsbrother]

local supermarket assistant manager told me that it was £30 and printed a duplicate receipt to that value, even though my shopping bill was less (contained unusual items so easily found on their system). That means that at a local level the company policy is being ignored and a more customer friendlyapproach is taken, even though this may lead to the dismissal of the staff concerned. This is clearly not right but a letter of complaint to the CE of the supermarket concerned hasnt attracted a response. I will ask the question at the next shareholder's AGM and see if that gets anywhere. Often, when there is a "hot potato" issues like this the company prepares a documant that is full of wind and water and the boss just says the question is covered by the statements and no further questions otherwise the 2 large gentlemen with short hair will forcibly remove you from the meeting.

As policy is by supermarket and PE are instructed, who has the control of the parking and therefore can PE levy a charge for breach at all?

[Homer67]

I fear we are losing sight of the actual issue here and treating Parking Eye like a legitimate company with a work ethic.

 

You are talking about 'genuine shopper exemption clauses' which don't appear on any car park signs and cannot therefore form part of any alleged contract between PE and the car driver

 

How can PE judge what a genuine shopper spends in cash or time and then act as rule maker, judge and executioner to enforce such a ridiculous rule?

 

The financial amount spent has nothing to do with how long you spend in a car park or your implied right of access to stay in the car park while you spend that amount - I may ponder a long time over a decision if I'm spending any money as it is all hard earned and I don't part with it easily.

 

How can PE judge how long it takes one person to shop against another and then set a rule against that?

 

A disabled person may take longer to browse round the shop, why should they be penalized with a made up rule by PE?

 

PE are not a governing body and it does not matter what rules they set internally, they are merely another PPC trying to force payments for invoices which are not enforceable as they are punitive payments and not real losses

 

The OP has asked why PE asked for proof of shopping and the answer should be that while they can ask for it, it does not mean you have to provide it and it does not make one bit of difference to the unenforceable invoice

 

The answers given on this thread could be read by the inexperienced as the charge being legitimate if this 'rule' set by PE has been breached.

[Nev Met]

Most of your reply is much of the same preposterous, nonsense or laughable text that is posted on here by a vocal minority and proves the saying that 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing' - it doesn't therefore doesn't qualify for any further response.

 

This however; this is extremely dangerous

 

The OP has asked why PE asked for proof of shopping and the answer should be that while they can ask for it, it does not mean you have to provide it and it does not make one bit of difference to the unenforceable invoice

 

Parking Eye WILL and DO cancel parking charges if motorists provide sufficient evidence that they are genuine shoppers, we believe the trigger amount to be £30.

 

Sending such receipts to ParkingEye is the easiest, simple and least painful way of putting the matter to bed and I strongly advise people to do exactly that.

 

You however, for reasons that I simply cannot fathom, are seeking to dissuade people from doing precisely that.

 

What you are doing by giving that advice is steering people towards a potential legal confrontation which is totally unnecessary and avoidable.

 

That is bad advice and should be withdrawn.

[ericsbrother]

PE have been cancelling the charge due to the store's intervention when proof of purchase is made. Aldi have a CS dept to deal with just this. I believe that this route allows the store to judge whether the problem is causing them lost goodwill and possibly business wheras the direct route hides the level of problem from the retailer and PE can then claim to use a discretion they dont really have. For retail parks I would agree that going straight to PE with copy of receipt will be quicker as the individual stores would have to chase up LL. I would, however let the retailer know that the problem exists, particularly thos retail parks that have dining facilities as they could easily lose all of their business if common sense doesnt prevail