ParkingEye signage

[DBC]

Would the Solicitor's Regulation Authority be interested in this if it involves somebody from the legal profession?

[reallymadwoman]

Possibly this also needs to go in the legal section, but I am very seriously going forward on claims for nuisance, negligence and harassment. I will be asking for an injunction and/or damages to include dimunition in the value of the property, loss of amenity value, stress, distress, embarrassment and inconvenience. This is clearly not the sort of claim an LIP should be undertaking so I've made an appointment with a local solicitor for an initial interview.

I don't qualify for legal aid/assistance or whatever it is called now and my home insurance won't cover it as the issue started before I took out the policy. Obviously I'll be exploring this with the solicitor, but am I likely to be able to get 'no win, no fee' type insurance to cover the potential costs? The claim is likely to be fast track and since no claim is ever watertight I am quite reasonably wary of the level of costs I could end up paying to the other side and I don't even want to incur the initial fee if there's no chance of being able to take this forward.

[ericsbrother]

An injunction costs about £8k and you will get that back as costs at taxation so be careful who you hire to avoid having a residual bill. The wording has to be quite carefully done but you could persuade youtr neighbours to put their name to it for a small consideration.

Harassment should get you about £1k in damages plus costs, loss of amenity has a formula for calculating the loss so unless you pay for a lease on the property or parking area that wil be difficult. The test case is Brodrick v Gale and Ainslie Ltd at swindon County Court.

Distress is again difficult to quantify but you must prove it is considerable so unless you have a mentla health issue you wont be getting much there but always worth using the argument to mitigate another part of your action.

No win no fee? You can get indemnity insurance for most things so i would guess at a premium of a couple of hundred quid to cover you for up to £300k, assuming your solicitor thinks it is a cast iron case.

[reallymadwoman]

I do lease the parking space and if there hadn't been parking we wouldn't have bought the property, and we have proof in the form of correspondence with our solicitor at the time of purchase - it very nearly fell through simply on the location of the parking space (due to disability issues).

 

How are you quantifying harassment? We've received around 100 parking charges plus associated debt collectors letters and, more recently, associated appeals to the parking company and POPLA. This has continued for 5 years - both the parking company and the freeholder have known about it from the outset and the freeholder actually settled a substantial harassment claim from a visitor 3 years ago, for far more than you are suggesting. They have done nothing to resolve the issue even though it would be simple and cheap to do it, however it would then result in zero income for the parking company. Based on my reading of nuisance and harassment cases, I would put this at least in the middle bracket of 'Vento' - the simple fact that the behaviour is solely motivated by profit would also possibly give rise to a claim for exemplary damages.

 

Luckily (or unluckily if you're the parking company) I've kept detailed records of the results of this harassment - the time taken dealing with it including irate phone calls from friends and relatives, the number of people who have refused point blank to visit in case they get another 'ticket' and the number of people who will now visit but either pay to park in the council pay and display next door or leave well within the 90 minutes allowed for the supermarket car park. Friends and relatives refusing to visit or stay very long due to fear of what the parking company will do is a gross interference with my right of quiet enjoyment and I'd have thought an obvious example of distress and upset - who wouldn't be?

 

Indemenity insurance seems to be the way to go, hopefully the solicitor will be willing to agree.

 

A recent case (Kettel & Ors v Bloomfold Ltd [2012] EWCH 1422 (Ch)) valued a parking space which the landlord had exchanged for one of equal convenience at approx £67,000 because the way he did it amounted to a nuisance. We are in the position of being effectively deprived of the use of a parking space which is likely to attract even higher damages. Again luckily there is an almost identical development very nearby without parking - a property in that development is approximated 25% cheaper than an equivalent one in ours, which also gives a guide to a dimunition in value of approximately the same amount, if not more.

[citizenB]

RMW, I will relocate you to the Legal Forum if you are thinking of looking at litigation

[DragonFly1967]

reallymadwoman, I seriously hope that you can stick it to them good and proper, and potentially take them to the cleaners. However, I wouldn't hold out too much hope of ever seeing any money that you do win.

 

If we're talking about what could be potentially high 5, or even 6 figure damages, then ParkingLie could 'do a Roxburghe'! I think there's a way around that by suing the directors (personally) rather than the company, but I'm sure others will know far more about those kind of nuances than I ever will.

 

But good luck however it goes.

 

I'm ready

[ericsbrother]

I said £1k for harassment as that was the court settlement against another parking co where the claimant was the first to use Ferguson v British gas ruling against them. I would agree that there is a lot more in the way of aggravation to your case than his so more compo would be appropriate. An alternative is to name the supermarket company as the defendant and get them to explain why their agents are allowed to harass you and get the injunction against them. You should round up all of the people affected and get witness statements and copies of any paperwork. If they want to follow your example afterwards theywill find iteasy to do so as I dont believe that PE will have the strength to resist after losing one and paying £20k in costs

Are you seriously thinking about moving out because of the stress? then you need to get some medical opinion from a MH consultant as to what their diagnosis is and what has caused your condition and what will alleviate it. Dont go private as that will not be looked on favourably by a court, they think you are buying the opinion.

[Ganymede]

I think you need to be a little bit more realistic about what award for damages you are going to receive. I'd lower your expectations a lot from the £67k being mentioned.

[steampowered]

My understanding is that harassment can be dealt with in the small claims track, if it is clear the amount you are claiming is less than 10k. This will vastly reduce the risk of having to pay PE's legal costs if you are not successful.

 

As soon as you start asking for an injunction or for anything which could exceed 10k, you are outside the small claims system and the costs risks is greater.

 

Before issuing any legal claim you should write a formal 'letter before action' to PE, referring to the guidance here http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pd_pre-action_conduct#A.

[reallymadwoman]

Opinions please on exactly where these signs are lacking:-

 

DVLA are happy to allow the BPA to decide if they're sufficient grounds to issue notices to genuine visitors,

 

BPA are happy to let ParkingEye decide.

 

It would be very helpful to have a second opinion on which bits of their own code of practice these signs don't meet.

 

Incidentally - they haven't even got the name of the development right so some visitors may not realise the signs even apply to them!

[ericsbrother]

It is not a contract- nowhere near one.

 

 

"please refer to another document that may not be seen by the majority of people entering the land" isnt a contract,

it isnt even an invitation to treat

 

 

so how PE can claim that there is cause to contact the DVLA god only knows.

 

 

However, it is typical of the DVLA to sit on the fence over this as they seem to be addicted to theor revenue stream from the computerised access to the database.

 

I would be livid if I got a demand as a result of this sign, it would be a fraud that doesnt even pretend to be something else.

 

 

It carries a much meaning as the sign outside my house with the street number on it.

 

 

telling people my address isnt a reason to bill them.

[reallymadwoman]

Just some of the ways those signs fail according to information from the BPA’s own website, and their code of practice

 

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/BPA_Code_of_Practice_-_February_2014_-_Version_4.pdf

 

 

Page 11

 

18.1 A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so under a licence or contract with you. If they park without your permission this will usually be an act of trespass. In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start.You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.

 

18.2 Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. Entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in a standard format. The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park, and it is recommended that you follow Department forTransport guidance on this. See Appendix B for an example of an entrance sign and more information about their use.

 

18.3 Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand. Signs showing your detailed terms and conditions must be at least 450mm x 450mm.

 

18.4 If you intend to use the keeper liability provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012, your signs must give ’adequate notice’. This includes:

• specifying the sum payable for unauthorised parking

adequately bringing the charges to the attention of drivers, and

following any applicable government signage regulations.

See paragraphs 2(2), 2(3) and 12 of the Schedule.

 

18.5 If a driver is parking with your permission, they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the contract with you. If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by your parking contract.

[DragonFly1967]

Just some of the ways those signs fail according to information from the BPA’s own website, and their code of practice

 

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/BPA_Code_of_Practice_-_February_2014_-_Version_4.pdf

 

While the point you make remains unaffected, there's a version 5 of the BPA CoP now, so people might not want to rely on V4

 

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS_Code_of_Practice_October_2014_update_V5.pdf

[reallymadwoman]

Thanks - I must still have the link to the old version.

[blueda]

I read your original post, You and your relatives and friends getting parking charges for parking on your own land, speakes volumes about ParkiingEye.

[reallymadwoman]

Latest developments are that in this case persistence has paid off to a certain extent. Both BPA and DVLA have agreed that until there is adequate signage in the resident's only area, ParkingEye cannot enforce at all on this site. PE are supposed to be arranging a meeting with themselves, the residents and Aldi to agree appropriate signage but I'm not holding my breath because someone seems to have suddenly realised that there is no facility under English law for PE to charge visitors £70 because the person they were visiting didn't register their vehicle so no amount of signage is ever going to solve the problem unless they have a complete rethink on how the site is 'managed'.

Incidentally, they've not been enforcing now for over 6 months and even though it must be fairly common knowledge since all the residents and the Aldi staff know, the car park itself is no worse and no better than it's ever been, which proves the point that PE weren't managing the site at all, they were just issuing invoices to anyone who stayed longer than 90 minutes regardless of where or how they parked.

[J1snn]

Email Aldi's managing director for England Richard Holloway richard.holloway @ aldi.co.uk (without the spaces) and raid the issue with him. You might not speak with him directly but someone from his team will get back to you and they are pretty high up. They should be able to help you once they know your problem!

 

Good luck!

[reallymadwoman]

Sorry, but Aldi have now known about this problem for 6 years and other than platitudes and promises they don't keep, including from the CEO's office, they've done nothing.

 

This is after all the same company who would rather defy a noise abatement notice than close the store during opening hours to do essential and very noisy maintenance.

[ericsbrother]

They make ruminatory noises because they are making money by "enrichment", which is a criminal offence (if you can get anyone interested in it, plod dont go after companies, just individuals- the big fish are left to the City of London police who dont have the time to do their work properly as they are too busy)

However, they are happy to make up stories to make it appear as though there is nothing really wrong with their approach other then a few technical tweaks.