Parking Eye Montgomery Square Rotherham Information.

[lookinforinfo]

BB, Parking Eye have been very quick off the mark issuing Court procedures. There has been no attempt to use debt collectors or solicitors to issue final warnings. In fact to have reached the 28 th day to qualify them to have gained keeper liability by the 2nd June must have meant that they had the NTK  delivered within 7 -8 days. 

 

I have never seen PE or any other parking company initiate an LBC so early. I suspect that either your friend and PE have history or has contacted them to appeal or complain about the PCN and perhaps refused to pay.

 

In any event we do need to see the NTK with times and dates included as well as knowing if there has been correspondence or appeals made.

 

Of course it may be that they are trying to get as many cases in as possible before the new parking Act comes into force though they would start with the most recent is a mystery. 

 

But as FTMDave has already said the clock is ticking........................

 

[lookinforinfo]

Parking Eye send out a PCN 3 days after the alleged offence. It should be an NTK but they are calling it a Reminder?

So there is no keeper liability as no notice that the liability of the driver has been transferred to the keeper on that PCN .

Advise the keeper therefore not to admit if they were the driver.

 

If the father was the keeper then I would be inclined to advise PE that he was not the driver so cease writing to him as he is not going to tell them who was driving.

 

Any further attempt to demand money will be reported initially to the ICO followed by a summons for breaching his GDPR when informed that he was not the driver. {GDPR claims can be £750 and this may increase if PE do not desist.

[lookinforinfo]

Hi Billy, thank you for coming on to the Forum and a belated welcome to the Forum.. 

 

The reason I asked about having issues with PE is that normally after motorists don't respond to PCNs the first thing the parking crooks do is to send letters from debt collectors and if that has no effect, they get solicitors to write. But in your son' s case they have gone straight to taking him to Court.

 

Could you please post the Notice to Keeper which should have been dated shortly after the alleged offence occurred.

 

[lookinforinfo]

Thanks for that Billy but there is still one PCN missing and that is the most important one. It is probably dated 29/4/2021 and iy say Notice to Keeper.  There are quite a few things on it that can harm their case so it would be great for your son if you could find it .

[lookinforinfo]

Thank you for posting the NTK.

Usually the parking companies get the wording wrong on it so that only the driver is responsible for the alleged debt.

Sadly this is not the case with your one, they do have the right to pursue the keeper even if they weren't the driver.

 

If one of you can get close up photos of the signage at the entrance and around the car park as well as the ticket machine and its Terms and Conditions on it or near it. There may well be factors there that mean there is no liability to pay their alleged debt.

 

Also how are you getting on with the planning permission for the signs. The Local Council usually have a website for the planning department so all you need is either the postcode or the street number and the street to find out what has been applied for.

[lookinforinfo]

Bazzoka Boo is quite right the enhance sign is a waste of time since it does not establish that there is a contract between the parking company and the motorist.

 

Saying that the Terms and conditions are inside the park means that you are entering without knowing what the T&Cs are. They could say that if you stay there for more than 1 minute it will cost you £500. No Court would accept that as being a valid contract.

 

The entrance sign is an invitation to treat, not a contract.

This may make it clearer or not.

https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/contract-law/offers-and-invitation-to-treat-contract-law-essay.php

 

And as it is an invitation to treat despite what the crooks in the parking world tell you, silence in this situation is not acceptance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felthouse_v_Bindley