The full email series is available at this link.
The Parking Prankster
"But to be frank he wasn't all that interested in me, the costs or the consent order. It was clear this was all a done deal before I had even walked in the room. He said that he was very interested in the content of my strike out application. Specifically the cases I had referred to and attached the transcripts for (Parking Eye v Sharma October 2013 and Parking Eye v Clarke January 2014). He told me that he and his fellow judges often discuss these parking company court cases they are being asked to rule on, over lunch. He said at some point one of these cases is going to go to appeal, in his view. He told me that he was going to "photocopy this material" from my strike out application.....and he thanked me."The courts are now seeing significant numbers of parking cases, and the judges are starting to talk together. Perhaps some of them even read this blog. Interesting times lie ahead.
ParkingEye may amend the time limit or tariff with the consent of the customer (not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed). In circumstances where consent is refused in accordance with this clause [...] ParkingEye shall have the right to terminate the services at the site without liability to the customer giving 30 days written notice.It is clear this change is not in the best interests of the retailers or motorists as it has been apparently introduced without consultation with these parties (although the Prankster notes that there is contention on this issue and that some comments imply that Debenhams asked for the change). If it was true that the retailers were not informed, this leaves the most likely reason the times were reduced was to increase revenue for ParkingEye. In some cases ParkingEye have a revenue share deal with the landowner, so it may also have been introduced to increase revenue for the landowner.
Where there is any change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then you should make these clear on your signage. Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you should consider a grace period to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes.It is not clear whether ParkingEye provided signage to indicate that terms had changed, or whether they allowed a grace period for adjustment. The Prankster welcomes any information Borehamwood residents can provide. Not obeying the BPA Ltd code of practice recommendations would make it clear that the changes were for monetary gain and not for the benefit of shoppers and shopkeepers.
We would advise all motorists who break the terms and conditions to make use of our audited appeals process and then, if needed, POPLA, so that they do not end up needing to pay these additional costs. ParkingEye, despite its current success in county courts, does not wish to resolve outstanding parking charges in this manner.Since then ParkingEye have changed their tune somewhat, having lost at POPLA in every single known case where their charges were claimed not to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and having had the lead adjudicator of POPLA write a special 17 page report explaining why their charges are not valid. ParkingEye have even stopped defending POPLA cases bought on these grounds.
Live feeds on customer usage, average length of stay, drop-offs, turnover, parking revenue and more gives you the information to help you plan more effectivelyThis is therefore nothing to do with enforcement and means that a proportion of the ANPR infrastructure, including servers, communications and back office functions must all be costed against management services to clients and not against enforcement.
"BPA chief executive Patrick Troy says private car parking companies are considerate."Charging an injured motorist is hardly considerate. The Prankster has a whole catalogue of similar incidents he has helped with including other medical emergencies, pensioners, disabled motorists, motorists pursued even though letters never arrived and companies using extremely bulling and aggressive practices.
Mr X has written to the court fairly recently. He says that he will be unable toParkingEye sent a lawyer in to court against Mr X. It is clear the sole reason this was done is not to recover the parking charge but to use this transcript to intimidate and bully other vulnerable people. Even though ParkingEye won the case they will be around £400-£500 out of pocket after paying for the lawyer and the transcript.
attend today as he has just returned from hospital and is using oxygen at home and
he is not able to travel.
ParkingEye 0 Fax machine 1
"I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for the fax you sent to the courts in Dudley on the 4th of April of which they gave me a copy. I think the Judge found them very useful, as he brought them to the attention of their solicitor, the outcome being their claim was dismissed. Thank you for your interest. Regards Freddie Sheppard"
This morning I was in court, we barely had time to sit down when the Judge requested a copy of the contract between the landowner and Parking Eye. After reading through it he said I do not believe you have authority to bring this case to court as there is nothing in the contract which clearly says you have permission to bring legal action for their loss; and this is their loss not yours.
After a few minutes of their representative trying to convince the Judge they had permission, he said the case was to be dismissed.
I was quite shocked it was over so soon!
Please note that we no longer represent ANPR Ltd of Preston as of 16th March 2014. Any issues regarding tickets should be directed to ANPR Ltd., Box one, Preston PR2 0NF or 01772 882 999.
I parked my car on the Church Street/Caunce Street car park on the morning of to go from Blackpool North for a day return to Manchester.
On that day the whole country suffered the worst storm for many years, the BBC describing it as of ‘unprecedented wind force’.
The storm caused my train to be stopped at Preston and I had to find my own way home to Blackpool resulting in me being 24 minutes over the 12 hours I’d paid for.
Regarding the Marlborough Hill ANPR pay & display car park.
I understand that there have been no tickets issued for overstaying in this car park for the last 3 months. Please can you confirm this.
We can confirm that there have been no Parking Charge Notices issued for overstaying in the car park for the last three monthsThis sounds like the system is working as intended. The motorist is paying the correct amount, and the hospital is getting the cash. What about the poor operator? They have no parking charge revenue at all?