Parking Eye court summons - advice appreciated

[motorwaymadness]

Thanks chrismk, delighted with your help.

[motorwaymadness]

I'm trying to send a PM but get this message:

Inbox contains 0 messages. You have 0 messages stored, of a total 0 allowed.

Your Private message storage has reached, % of the total amount allowed for you.

 

Yesterday it said I could send a message when I reached 30 posts, which I now have.

[ims21]

Any reason why this cannot be discussed in open forum?

[DragonFly1967]

Any reason why this cannot be discussed in open forum?

 

I don't see any reason why not. But I think MM is being cautious over the fact that 'who know's who's reading it' and as they say, forewarned is forearmed. If for instance one of the ParkingLie minions is reading the thread, then they'll know exactly what's going on. Although, I suppose that one could argue that this might not be a bad thing. They might decide to just give up lol

 

I do think it's slightly unfair of one of the site team to remove a users PM'ing permissions though (if that's what's happened). MM hasn't broken any rules, and while I understand that it's your forum (you as in the mod team), surely a user shouldn't be sanctioned for no reason.

 

--

 

Anyway....

 

MM, I suggest that you post your letter to this thread so that we can all see what it says, obviously remove any personal details, and we'll see if we can come up with any other ideas

[motorwaymadness]

It's not a discussion, it's just checking over a letter to ensure the recipient doesn't see potentially inappropriate drafts online.

 

When I know I haven't said anything daft, I'll post it on here straight away where in can indeed be discussed in open forum.

 

We discussed this yesterday on this thread and I said if anyone had any objections to this one PM that I wouldn't do it.

 

There were no objections.

[ims21]

The ethos of CAG is that it is a self help forum.

 

Operating in that way means that people can read various threads and become empowered to deal with these companies.

 

Historically we have seen matters taken off forum, dealt with by PM and the OP lose.

 

The advantages of being open is that other people can also benefit from the thread and the information presented. In addition it means that other knowledgeable people can have their input and cast an eye over any proposed material. That is the beauty of CAG in that it is a community of helpful people rather than a one to one advice site.

 

It does also raise the eyebrows of the site team where people simply post clock to get their account up to the requisite number of posts purely to be able to use the PM facility.

 

However, I am going to give the OP the benefit of the doubt on this one and have reactivated the PM facility.

 

In return I would expect to see the proposed document posted here in a timely fashion so that others who care to contribute can do so.

[DragonFly1967]

The ethos of CAG is that it is a self help forum.

 

Operating in that way means that people can read various threads and become empowered to deal with these companies.

 

Historically we have seen matters taken off forum, dealt with by PM and the OP lose.

 

The advantages of being open is that other people can also benefit from the thread and the information presented. In addition it means that other knowledgeable people can have their input and cast an eye over any proposed material. That is the beauty of CAG in that it is a community of helpful people rather than a one to one advice site.

 

It does also raise the eyebrows of the site team where people simply post clock to get their account up to the requisite number of posts purely to be able to use the PM facility.

 

However, I am going to give the OP the benefit of the doubt on this one and have reactivated the PM facility.

 

In return I would expect to see the proposed document posted here in a timely fashion so that others who care to contribute can do so.

 

Thanks ims21, and I completely agree 100%

[DragonFly1967]

MM, I received your PM, but I couldn't reply earlier. And for the benefit of everyone else, here's what I've just replied to MM

 

This can be chopped to fit if it's too long.

 

I did try to reply to this earlier, I got it ok, but couldn't reply to you as it said you weren't allowed to receive PM's. Anyway...

 

All that I'd add to that is your vehicle registration and any reference numbers that you've been given by ParkingLie. That way, if WB HQ decide to have ParkingLie cancel it, and they can (they're the landowner/tennant whichever it may be and therefore employ ParkingLie) they'll know what reference numbers to be quoting.

 

Hopefully WB HQ will be telling ParkingLie to wind their necks in.

 

 

Get that posted to the forum as is, it's pretty much perfect (in my opinion) as is (with the additional info I've suggested). See if anyone else comments in the next couple of hours, and if not (or after you've made any further suggested edits), get it fired off in an email to the CEO so that it's sitting in his inbox when he turns up for work in the morning.

[motorwaymadness]

Thanks DragonFly, and thanks moderators for reactivating my account.

 

May I just point out that that's all I wanted to use the facility for - for the document to be checked so that I can post it publicly with confidence. I believe we're all fighting the same fight here and had I said something daft that could have affected my case that would have been a loss for all of us.

 

Let me just check I haven't left my fingerprints on the letter and I'll post it in a few mins...

[motorwaymadness]

Dear

 

As a motorist who clocks up high business mileage, I am a regular customer at your service stations - most regularly Newport Pagnell and Woodall.

 

I frequently visit your sites for comfort breaks, food, coffee, and – when safety requires it – a powernap to ensure a safe onward journey. I’ll occasionally even hold a business meeting at a service station when I’ve agreed to meet a client at a convenient mid-way point between our bases.

 

I don’t take advantage, I always make a purchase of some kind, I say please and thank you to your staff, I don’t litter and I don’t treat your car parks like campsites.

 

In fact I think I’m as typical a motorway service station customer as you’re likely to find. I thought I was the type of consumer you welcomed and not the type you needed to deter.

 

So perhaps you can guess what’s coming next... Parking Eye.

 

Late at night on May 15 I had no desire to lengthen my journey home from London to X, but being a responsible motorist I pulled into Newport Pagnell northbound to preserve my own safety and that of other M1 traffic when I found myself becoming drowsy at the wheel.

 

It was late, dark, I was exhausted, as a regular customer I knew the two-hour parking rule already and so set my phone alarm for a 30-minute nap. But because I was so tired that I’d needed to pull off the motorway in the first place, a highly predictable thing happened: the alarm failed to rouse me. Such an innocent occurrence that could happen to anyone attempting to heed the warning that tiredness kills.

 

Yet as a result I am now being hounded and dragged through the courts by ParkingEye for a short and unintentional overstay.

 

So I am writing to you in the hope you can inject a sense of proportionality and fairness into an issue that has already gone too far.

 

To ParkingEye, the likes of me are nothing more than faceless registration plate numbers. And I have a defence statement prepared for them as per their wishes, containing tried and tested legal arguments and case law. But I’m hoping you will allow me to speak as a customer and not a defendant.

 

So while my formal defence statement contains a number of valid legal arguments, it is the following that I personally feel make the initial fine unfair and the subsequent prosecution disgraceful.

 

Firstly, I could bore you with reams of information on precisely how disproportionate an effect this issue is having on myself and my family. With demands of my time and money already at critical levels, I do not have the money to cough up for a quiet life - but the alternative of dedicating myself to a legal battle is taking me away from some very serious matters indeed.

 

It was those serious matters that prevented me from finding spare days in my schedule to submit a POPLA appeal before the deadline after my ParkingEye appeal was rejected. But now I face the even greater pressure of prosecution and have no choice but to stomach this aggressive intrusion into my life and defend myself.

 

Secondly, it is my understanding that ParkingEye may only recover losses incurred by my overstay and not impose a penalty.

 

I purchased a double espresso from Starbucks. I believe that constitutes a profit for that leaseholder and not a loss. A small purchase admittedly, but one of many I have made over the years as a genuine customer and not a freeloader.

 

Additionally, the car park was virtually empty when I arrived and even emptier when I left. It was late at night and there was no queue of cars waiting for me to wake up and vacate the space I had been occupying in the empty car park. I was parked away from the entrance, inconveniencing absolutely nobody. I did no harm, I caused no loss. My presence was too insignificant to be noticed or remembered by any human, only by a ParkingEye camera.

 

Thirdly, to a bleary-eyed motorist whose focus is on becoming roadworthy again and continuing their journey as soon as possible, their signs are misleading. There is no legible mention of your standard parking charges – the message is that parking is free for two hours, or it’s £100 thereafter.

 

Only since that night have I discovered what your standard parking charges are. Could I have paid £11 for 24 hours parking before leaving the site once I realised I was no longer welcome? I still don’t know the answer to that but I certainly would have paid that upon waking, had my interpretation of the signage not been that my continued presence was not welcome and I must exit without delay.

 

I am therefore willing to offer the sum of £11 as full and final settlement. I would accept this to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss and not punitive. This is an offer I will only make directly to Welcome Break as if a loss has been suffered, it is by Welcome Break and not ParkingEye, and for no greater sum, as that is the only loss of revenue you could have conceivably suffered from my presence.

 

I do understand the use of prosecution as a deterrent that sends a message to those who wish to flout the rules. But who will be deterred by publicly pursuing this case? Is the message that Welcome Break mustn’t be used as the refuge for the weary motorist that we all believed you to be? That taking sensible safety precautions carries with it a great risk financial hardship and prosecution?

 

The facts of this case remain undisputed by either party. I do not deny that I overstayed and ParkingEye does not claim any improper motive on my part or that I was not a genuine Welcome Break customer. So the innocent scenario which I’ve outlined to you is precisely what will be laid open to public judgement should this go all the way to court.

 

If ParkingEye ran a considered appeals process which gave due attention to their clients’ public relations interests, you might be protected from receiving pleas such as this from upset customers. But their flimsy appeals process which almost never finds in favour of the motorist means that the innocent, the guilty and all the grey areas in between get hit with the same ferocious onslaught.

 

I won’t be bullied into submission and will defend myself confidently if forced, but I have no desire whatsoever for this matter to go that far. Winning in court will be no comfort to me. A capped loss of earnings claim won’t come anywhere near compensation for the precious time I’m wasting on ParkingEye.

 

So while I am preparing for this to go to court, I would be immensely relieved if you could act as a voice of reason on this matter. As the landowner I believe it is ultimately your authority upon which ParkingEye relies to pursue prosecutions.

 

I’m not sure whether that means you are still able to call off ParkingEye at this stage, or whether you could support me in writing so that I may stand the greatest chance of getting this halted myself as soon as possible, or whether you will accept my settlement offer.

 

I am still hopeful of an amicable solution, as I have thus far been very satisfied with the service I’ve received from Welcome Break itself.

 

On the night in question there was no member of staff in the Starbucks cafe and without needing to be asked, a security guard went and fetched her for me when he saw me waiting.

 

Since then I have phoned Newport Pagnell twice about the ParkingEye issue and spoken to two different duty managers. The second took my details and promised to pass them to the site’s general manager who would get back to me. Although I never did get a response, both duty managers were approachable, polite and listened.

 

If these individuals are indicative of a considerate customer service ethos throughout the company then I hope you too will want to help a genuine customer receive a positive outcome.

 

Your service stations and others are part of my working life and I would love to continue to use them freely and without fear or resentment, so I’m not even minded to threaten taking my business elsewhere. But I would be much comforted if you could find the generosity to help me resolve this matter sensibly.

 

ParkingEye believe that destroying my credit worthiness with a CCJ is an appropriate punishment for a miniscule oversight borne of the best intentions. They think that keeping me from running my business during a time of extreme pressure will teach me a lesson for not prioritising their speculative invoice over food and childcare. They want normal, hard-working, sensible motorists to be publicly deterred from Welcome Break premises.

 

I hope you will disagree with ParkingEye and recognise that these are sad consequences of being a Welcome Break customer.

 

Kindest regards

 

Yours sincerely

[DragonFly1967]

MM, you really need that email to be there when the CEO arrives in the morning. In the absence of any other advice, I'd suggest adding the details that I've suggested and sending it

[honeybee13]

Hello MM.

 

This is probably really picky, but after a career of writing business letters, I wouldn't finish one with this:

 

Kindest regards

 

Yours sincerely.

 

I would suggest that you choose either kindest regards which seems a little inappropriate as you're annoyed, or yours sincerely if you've addressed the email to the CEO in name. If you've put Dear Sir, then it needs to be Yours faithfully.

 

HB

[motorwaymadness]

It's already gone DragonFly, about 20 minutes ago, with the additional info as suggested. I haven't received an auto-responder so fingers crossed that means he's not on holiday and will get it first thing.

 

I'm in back-to-back meetings tomorrow but will get back to the court form and posting you guys any updates tomorrow evening.

 

Until tomorrow, comrades...

[motorwaymadness]

Thanks though honeybee, sorry I didn't find your contribution in time.

[chrismk]

Hi All, Parking Eye signage photos as promised from Newport Pagnell Services Northbound.

 

[/img]

 

The picture above is taken from the area you said you parked, with the line of trees to the right and facing the motorway, there is 1 sign visible in the distance to the left.

 

[/img]

 

The picture above is a general view take from the area you said you parked, the main service area is directly ahead in the photo.

 

 

The photo above is located by the entrance to the facilities as you walk across from the car park.

 

I hope this helps you, if you zoom in on the photo you can read the small print at the bottom of the signage. if you need anything further including email copies of the pictures just let me know.

[honeybee13]

chrismk, I think you're a star, thank you for taking the trouble to do this.

 

MM, if you haven't already, you might consider clicking on the star at the bottom left of one of chris's posts to add to their reputation and say thank you. The same goes for Dragonfly.

 

HB

[DragonFly1967]

I've also added to chrismk's reputation "for going above and beyond"

[honeybee13]

Nice one.

 

HB

[motorwaymadness]

Hi all. I've only got a few mins but I'll certainly add to your rep later tonight chrismk.

 

Thanks for that. I don't remember seeing those signs at all, I thought they were blue and yellow but that could be signs I've seen on other occasions.

 

Quick update on the letter: received an email first thing from the chief exec's PA saying she's forwarding my email to their parking team who will be in touch.

 

Thanks again chrismk.

[ericsbrother]

so, do you reckon you could read the small print on an unlit sign at night?

I reckon that the signs are non compliant with what is needed to form a contract because the sign at the entrance invites you to go into the parking area to see what contract you have agreed to by passing that sign. The small print is too small to read and the big words saying that failure to comply will result in a charge dont say why.

Possibly not enought to kill the claim in itself but certainly enought to upset a judge who may be faced with more of the same claims going through the courts and defended in a similar manner.

When it goets down to it you need to know how much of the £11 goes to PE and how much goes to WB and W H Smith or petrol co. Demand sight of the contract between PE and all of the others to determine whether PE have actually lost anything at all by not paying someone else £11 at the time.

[DragonFly1967]

Hi all. I've only got a few mins but I'll certainly add to your rep later tonight chrismk.

 

Thanks for that. I don't remember seeing those signs at all, I thought they were blue and yellow but that could be signs I've seen on other occasions.

 

Quick update on the letter: received an email first thing from the chief exec's PA saying she's forwarding my email to their parking team who will be in touch.

 

Thanks again chrismk.

 

Interesting... As it wasn't a "tough luck, now pay up", I reckon you might be in with a good chance of Welcome Break putting ParkingLie back on their leash. That'd be a damn site easier than having to go through the whole court rigmarole

[chrismk]

No problem MM only too happy to help, hope all goes well

[motorwaymadness]

Thanks ericsbrother. I thought though that PE couldn't claim for losses - is that a given or something PE will dispute?

 

Guys, I'd love some feedback on this as I'm aware I need to be watertight in my recollections and the way I explain things and I fear I may have got a bit muddled.

 

Does it matter that even though the red sign chrismk kindly snapped for us is in a useless location, that it's formatted differently to the numerous PE signs I'd come to have memorised?

 

I've looked on Google images and thankfully the yellow PE sign that talks fines not tariffs is no figment of my imagination. And I didn't see the sign anyway so hopefully it's matterless. But in my letter to the CEO my signage criticism was based on existing knowledge of PE signs, not on something read that night because I didn't read anything that night.

 

So if a yellow sign was assumed to be there and may or may not be there but was unseen and a red sign that was there wasn't seen either does it make a difference that I criticised the yellow sign that I don't know was there or not there or the red sign that was there?

[ericsbrother]

PE's claim is for the loss they have made due to your breach of contract. What they have trouble with is proving the money they say you owe reflects what they have lost. They spent some time trying to persuade judges that it was a commercial contract where penalty clauses are allowed and this has been accepted on 2 occasions but even one of those reduced the amount PE got. They seem to have given up arguing that everything is a B2B matter. It has been applied to lorry drivers on industrial estates and that is going through the appeals process very slowly as there is a huge interest from all sides.

You can raise the point of the mention of fines as part of your inadequate/confusing signage thrust but as I said, dont rely entirely on it for your defence, just make sure it is raised as part of a bigger defence.

Fire off a letter to PE demanding sight of their contract with WB and all of the other companies to see whether they have any contract that they may rely upon to make their claim.

They will probably say that you cant see it but make the court aware that you have asked for this and it has been refused so you will be seeking a striking out of the clasim on the grounds of locus standi once an allocation has been made. .

[motorwaymadness]

That's a great help, thanks ericsbrother.

 

Am I right in thinking until the next stage I need to return the court form with my defence statement and send a list of info requests directly to PE? Am I missing anything?