Parking Eye (1 Viewer)

[Glandwr]

Park in a council run car park, over stay for 5 minutes and get a ticket issued by a traffic warden or whatever you want to call them. Penalty will typically be £60 - £75 usually reduced if paid quickly.

Park in a privately run car park, over stay for 5 minutes and get a penalty through the post. Penalty will be around £75 - £80.

Can you explain the difference please because for the life of me I can't see it.

I never hear rants about tickets in council run car parks, people just pay them. If they aren't paid most councils have no hesitation in pursuing payment through the courts. Again I never hear rants when this happens.

Big difference is that the council has the writ of government. To break their rules is to break the law.

To fence off a piece of ground and to bluff the same authority in order to make a profit is a whole different thing.

Dick

 

[Deleted member 29692]

Big difference is that the council has the writ of government. To break their rules is to break the law.

To fence off a piece of ground and to bluff the same authority in order to make a profit is a whole different thing.

Dick

Why?

If I have a piece of land that I decide to make available for people to park on why shouldn't I be free to apply any conditions I choose? If people don't like my conditions they are completely free to go and park somewhere else.

 

[chaser]

It's a load of b......... If an hour is £2.00 ok , the next hour is £2.00 but no , they want £80 , is there any sense in that , no .

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Glandwr]

Why?

If I have a piece of land that I decide to make available for people to park on why shouldn't I be free to apply any conditions I choose? If people don't like my conditions they are completely free to go and park somewhere else.

Of course you can apply any conditions that you want Nick, and as long as you don't con the naive into thinking that they have broken the law and are being fined good luck to you.

The moment you do that and let the informed and articulate get away with it don't complain that you are dispised for it. especially if that is your sole business plan.

Dick

 

[Deleted member 29692]

Of course you can apply any conditions that you want Nick, and as long as you don't con the naive into thinking that they have broken the law and are being fined good luck to you.

The moment you do that and let the informed and articulate get away with it don't complain that you are dispised for it. especially if that is your sole business plan.

Dick

I understand that the Supreme Court have ruled that Parking Eye are not conning anyone into thinking anything and that their charges are acceptable.

I couldn't give a toss what people think of me so if anyone wants to despise me go right ahead.

As it happens I don't have any land suitable for use as a car park but if I did then I would take a view on how best to operate it. If using a company such as Parking Eye to manage it stacked up as the best method for me then I would have no hesitation in using them.

 

[GJH]

Park in a council run car park, over stay for 5 minutes and get a ticket issued by a traffic warden or whatever you want to call them. Penalty will typically be £60 - £75 usually reduced if paid quickly.

Park in a privately run car park, over stay for 5 minutes and get a penalty through the post. Penalty will be around £75 - £80.

Can you explain the difference please because for the life of me I can't see it.

I never hear rants about tickets in council run car parks, people just pay them. If they aren't paid most councils have no hesitation in pursuing payment through the courts. Again I never hear rants when this happens.

There obviously isn't a difference, apart from the fact that the legislation (none of which is criminal legislation) which governs the charging regimes is different.
It is just that:
1. Some people can't stand to have to pay the consequences of their own errors.
2. Some people think that they have a right to park where they want, for as long as they want, if it suits their own convenience.
3. Some people think it is wrong for others (but not themselves of course) to use the property of others as they wish.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[chaser]

The point is the system is geared to getting you over your time allowed , if you get a ticket for an hour but get delayed , you get charged £80 , why, if the car park had a machine to pay for how long you had been there , you would never be over, but then they wouldn't be able to fine you, which could be on a rising cost if need be, but at least you wouldn't get a ridiculous fine.

 

[GJH]

The point is the system is geared to getting you over your time allowed , if you get a ticket for an hour but get delayed , you get charged £80 , why, if the car park had a machine to pay for how long you had been there , you would never be over, but then they wouldn't be able to fine you, which could be on a rising cost if need be, but at least you wouldn't get a ridiculous fine.

1. Most of the car parks under discussion are short stay ones, not long stay, so part of their very essence is to restrict the length of stay.
2. Most of the car parks under discussion are free for the duration of the stay allowed so they don't have machines in the first place.

 

[Deleted member 29692]

The point is the system is geared to getting you over your time allowed , if you get a ticket for an hour but get delayed , you get charged £80 , why, if the car park had a machine to pay for how long you had been there , you would never be over, but then they wouldn't be able to fine you, which could be on a rising cost if need be, but at least you wouldn't get a ridiculous fine.

That sort of system is in place in many pay car parks now and appearing in more all the time. I agree that it works well.

The problem with it is, as I believe has been mentioned previously, is that it wouldn't work in car parks that are free but have a time limit.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[PeteH]

As far as I am concerned a can of motorcycle chain lube with a long tube would be the ideal camera stopper as it is greasy . sticky and a hell of a job to get off. I suppose it is criminal damage?? " I was only lubricating the hinges, your Honour"

I understand that a powerful LASER will destroy the C-Mos which most of them use. (But don`t say I told you!!)

Pete

 

[chaser]

1. Most of the car parks under discussion are short stay ones, not long stay, so part of their very essence is to restrict the length of stay.
2. Most of the car parks under discussion are free for the duration of the stay allowed so they don't have machines in the first place.

Yes but the same applies, if you are delayed through no fault of your own, even down to a queue in the post office, why are you charged £80 for ten minutes or so.
As I said geared to catch you out.

 

[GJH]

Yes but the same applies, if you are delayed through no fault of your own, even down to a queue in the post office, why are you charged £80 for ten minutes or so.
As I said geared to catch you out.

No fault of your own? Does the post office now have security to make people stay in a queue rather than give it up as a bad job? Or is it the case, perhaps, that people do not leave themselves enough time to cater for such delays and haven't the gumption to make sure they get back in time if they are delayed?

Example. In Glossop in Derbyshire a new shopping park was opened in an old mill yard a few years ago. The owners provide free parking for up to 2 hours (with no return for 2 hours) to enable people to use the shops, cafes &c in that shopping park. They know full well that many people will also nip to other local shops but don't bother so long as the 2 hours isn't exceeded.
I've seen several people whinging on Facebook about receiving a charge for exceeding the time with excuses like "2 hours isn't long enough to have lunch" and "why do they have a 2 hour restriction when it takes me longer to walk round the town doing all my shopping". Those are whinges from people who ignore the fact that there is a LA car park across the road where they can park for up to 4 hours for only £2 and another 5 minutes walk away where they can park all day for £2.20.

I have no sympathy with people who gear their behaviour to catch themselves out.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[GeebeeJaybee]

I travel all over the country for my job - paying to park where necessary for meetings and site inspections. If there is limited parking I have sometimes had to excuse myself from meetings and move the car (for example in Manchester City Centre). Sometimes I have to pay up to £20 a day.
If I am not sure how long I will be I pay for longer than I think I will need. I ALWAYS make sure I am back before the time is up - if I wasn't and I got a ticket it would only be my own fault.

I don't see why people have a problem with companies making money the global economy relies on this.

Do I like paying for parking? Of course not, but not a lot in life is free and if I owned some land I could use to give an income instead of working Iwould be on it like a shot!

I thnk some of the attitude comes from people seeing parking charges etc as money for nothing - but it isn't - buying land and running it as a business is no different than selling any other commodity.

 

[gus-lopez]

I have done the same exercise as Graham and contacted every local authority and other parking providers. One that stands out in my mind stated that the vehicle must be within the marked bay. An overhang front or rear of 30cm was classed as outside of the bay.
.

I find it quite simple . I reverse in,the tow bar against the wall if the front overhangs then the bay isn't big enough .end of.

The people who are being ripped off here care

You will still get a ticket from parking eye for 5 mins and your 2 examples are chalk and cheese, parking eye don't suffer any "Consequences" if your late by a few mins, It's not their car park.

As for your last point, well I'm struggling to see how parking eye making money from people keeps prices in PC World in check.

We're not going to agree, so I'll leave you to it, I'm off to the continent soon where my van's welcome and there's no Parking Eye.

Oh, if anyone is a bit late a bit of paper over the No plate as you pass the camera will save you £60 (take it off before you get on the road though)

What I said pages ago & also for the speed cameras .

My point was that I can't expect to continue using it after it has expired - the cost is somewhat irrelevent.

Err no There is NO requirement for a passport to enter the UK for a British citizen.
The UK passport is only required to LEAVE the uk ( It is the only country with this rule ) No British citizen or person holding right to reside can be denied entry to the UK ,they only have to be able to prove who they are. Yes they can be detained & mucked about whilst enquiries are mad e but they cannot be denied entry

Where's the deterrent there?

Plenty of people would happily dump their car somewhere for a days shopping or whatever if they knew it would only cost them 20 quid.

& that's the problem with the UK with regard to prices . They are all completely over the top.

Fair enough, though not round my way - even parking in the station is "only" £10 for the day.
Then how about a sliding scale?
£5 for 30mins over, £10 for an hour & further £10 for every hour thereafter or part of?
...and compensation automatically if (and when) they get it wrong ???
£75 is outrageous & unconscionable.
Appropriate penalty yes, deterrent yes but not rip off.

It is . Might as well park on a yellow line.£60 reduced by 50% for prompt payment.

£75 is normally the penalty if you get a ticket from a council traffic warden, or it is in these parts anyway, so by that logic the private parking companies are charging the "going rate."

The only difference is that the council usually offer a discount for quick payment.

£60 reduced by 50% for prompt payment.

Park in a council run car park, over stay for 5 minutes and get a ticket issued by a traffic warden or whatever you want to call them. Penalty will typically be £60 - £75 usually reduced if paid quickly.

Park in a privately run car park, over stay for 5 minutes and get a penalty through the post. Penalty will be around £75 - £80.

Can you explain the difference please because for the life of me I can't see it.

I never hear rants about tickets in council run car parks, people just pay them. If they aren't paid most councils have no hesitation in pursuing payment through the courts. Again I never hear rants when this happens.

The difference is the 50% discount the council offer. Or park on yellows & it is still cheaper than PE.
As to ranting ,you need to spend a day with me. I have a rant for all & everything .

It is just that:
1. Some people can't stand to have to pay
2. Some people think that they have a right to park where they want, f.

I've corrected that for you.

I travel all over the country for my job - paying to park where necessary for meetings and site inspections. If there is limited parking I have sometimes had to excuse myself from meetings and move the car (for example in Manchester City Centre). Sometimes I have to pay up to £20 a day.
If I am not sure how long I will be I pay for longer than I think I will need. I ALWAYS make sure I am back before the time is up - if I wasn't and I got a ticket it would only be my own fault.

I don't see why people have a problem with companies making money the global economy relies on this.

Do I like paying for parking? Of course not, but not a lot in life is free and if I owned some land I could use to give an income instead of working Iwould be on it like a shot!

I thnk some of the attitude comes from people seeing parking charges etc as money for nothing - but it isn't - buying land and running it as a business is no different than selling any other commodity.

But YOU aren't paying to park ,the company/business is ? & it is all tax deductable. What you have to ask is would YOU as a private individual be prepared pay ridiculous amounts of money like that.
PE don't buy any land it is just a company employed to manage the car parking .

 

[PeteH]

PE, And many Similar Companies are owned and run, by the same "people" ( I use the term Very Loosely) who USED to be "Clamper's". There is a website which lists all the So Called (parking operators) and Surprise surprise 90% are in the Same offices that used to house "clamping" operations!. It`s the same Thugs, just gone upmarket and think they are "legit".

Pete

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[GJH]

PE, And many Similar Companies are owned and run, by the same "people" ( I use the term Very Loosely) who USED to be "Clamper's". There is a website which lists all the So Called (parking operators) and Surprise surprise 90% are in the Same offices that used to house "clamping" operations!. It`s the same Thugs, just gone upmarket and think they are "legit".

Pete

And why not? After all their "customers" are the same people who think they should be able to get something for nothing.

 

[PeteH]

And why not? After all their "customers" are the same people who think they should be able to get something for nothing.

Ah Yes, those who once clamped an elderly disabled gent of my acquaintance who had broken down and was awaiting the arrival of the RAC. Two bloody big young guys with extreme attitude. For an Ex Airman in his 80`s who had flown in WW2 in Lancasters. it was still a bad experience. He gave up driving for good not long after. A couple of F***ing Bullies!. Who in a Fair society SHOULD have been in jail! Barstewards like that should be boiled in oil!

Pete

 

[Deleted member 29692]

PE, And many Similar Companies are owned and run, by the same "people" ( I use the term Very Loosely) who USED to be "Clamper's". There is a website which lists all the So Called (parking operators) and Surprise surprise 90% are in the Same offices that used to house "clamping" operations!. It`s the same Thugs, just gone upmarket and think they are "legit".

Pete

Not sure what you're on about there and evidently you don't know either.

Parking Eye is owned by Capita which is a FTSE100 company. It's a multi billion pound group, not a couple of blokes driving round in a battered Transit.

As always I don't expect the facts to get in a way of a hysterical rant so carry on.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[PeteH]

Not sure what you're on about there and evidently you don't know either.

Parking Eye is owned by Capita which is a FTSE100 company. It's a multi billion pound group, not a couple of blokes driving round in a battered Transit.

As always I don't expect the facts to get in a way of a hysterical rant so carry on.

As I said 90% are. so one skips the net? and capita are a bit suspect anyway if I remember?

Pete

 

[Deleted member 29692]

As I said 90% are. so one skips the net? and capita are a bit suspect anyway if I remember?

Pete

You specifically said Parking Eye are. If that bit of your data is wrong maybe the rest of it has to be considered suspect as well?

Capita, the same as any other group of that size always does, have had problems in one or two of their divisions. £576million operating profits from £4.3billion revenue for 2014 though. Someone's doing something right

 

[PeteH]

You specifically said Parking Eye are. If that bit of your data is wrong maybe the rest of it has to be considered suspect as well?

Capita, the same as any other group of that size always does, have had problems in one or two of their divisions. £576million operating profits from £4.3billion revenue for 2014 though. Someone's doing something right

I think that is something we will have to agree to disagree on?

Pete

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[GJH]

Ah Yes, those who once clamped an elderly disabled gent of my acquaintance who had broken down and was awaiting the arrival of the RAC. Two bloody big young guys with extreme attitude. For an Ex Airman in his 80`s who had flown in WW2 in Lancasters. it was still a bad experience. He gave up driving for good not long after. A couple of F***ing Bullies!. Who in a Fair society SHOULD have been in jail! Barstewards like that should be boiled in oil!

Pete

I'm sure we could all find an example of bad behaviour in any field. That does not mean that the whole industry is bad any more than an example of excellence means that a whole industry is flawless.
Always remember (as has been pointed out in a number of threads), if people park within the rules the management companies make no money. It is only because so many volunteer (willingly or stupidly) that they make anything.

 

[Glandwr]

Somerfield contracted with parking eye to manage their car parks. After discovering that the means that PE were using to do it they terminated the contract, saying that PE employed illegal methods.

The High Court in 2011 found in favour of PE when they sued for breach of contract, but crucially agreed that PE did employ questionable and illegal practices but said that that in itself was not a valid reason for terminating the contract.

Says it all for me, see Somerfield vs Parking Eye 2011.

Dick

 

[Deleted member 29692]

Somerfield contracted with parking eye to manage their car parks. After discovering that the means that PE were using to do it they terminated the contract, saying that PE employed illegal methods.

The High Court in 2011 found in favour of PE when they sued for breach of contract, but crucially agreed that PE did employ questionable and illegal practices but said that that in itself was not a valid reason for terminating the contract.

Says it all for me, see Somerfield vs Parking Eye 2011.

Dick

The Supreme Court disagree.

Beavis v Parking Eye 2015

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0280-judgment.pdf

As a Supreme Court judgement this now becomes binding case law and the issue does not have to be tested again.

A very very simplified summary could be:

A contact is a contract, whether business or consumer, and there cannot be any retrospective attempt to point out unfair terms. The consumers only cause of action would be to refuse to enter the contract in the first place i.e. park somewhere else.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Glandwr]

The Supreme Court disagree.

Beavis v Parking Eye 2015

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0280-judgment.pdf

As a Supreme Court judgement this now becomes binding case law and the issue does not have to be tested again.

A very very simplified summary could be:

A contact is a contract, whether business or consumer, and there cannot be any retrospective attempt to point out unfair terms. The consumers only cause of action would be to refuse to enter the contract in the first place i.e. park somewhere else.

PE won the Somerfield case too Nick, as you point out just because PE employs illegal practices does NOT invalidate a contract. It does however lend me to believe that they are a bunch of unprincipled shits.

Dick

 

[Deleted member 29692]

PE won the Somerville case too Nick, as you point out just because PE employs illegal practices does NOT invalidate a contract. It does however lend me to believe that they a bunch of unprincipled shits.

Dick

What specifically are the "illegal practices" you claim they employ? Which laws specifically are they breaking?

If they are breaking any laws they can, and I'm sure due to the high profile nature of these cases would, be held to account, but this would be a separate issue to the contract and not a reason to set it aside.

 

[Glandwr]

The high court judgement in brief doesn't specify. It just agrees with Somerfield that PE employed illegal practices in enforcing their fines but said that that in itself was not reason for the contract to be invalidated which is what Somerfiield wanted. Aldi so rumours on social media have it are also trying to pull out out of their contract but can see noway of doing it without incurring a significant financial loss as did Somerfiield.

Maybe you could find it Nick.

http://www.internationallawoffice.c...roportionality-test-applied-in-contract-claim

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Deleted member 29692]

The high court judgement in brief doesn't specify. It just agrees with Somerfield that PE employed illegal practices in enforcing their fines but said that that in itself was not reason for the contract to be invalidated which is what Somerfiield wanted. Aldi so rumours on social media have it are also trying to pull out out of their contract but can see noway of doing it without incurring a significant financial loss as did Somerfiield.

Maybe you could find it Nick.

As far as I can see the "illegal practices" amounted to nothing more than a single letter stating the debt was due to Parking Eye where in fact it was due to Somerfield and a couple of documents stating that Parking Eye had authority to initiate legal proceedings which they didn't. The judgement points out that Somerfield were aware of both and could have influenced them at the time.

A couple of mistakes on some paperwork.

That's it. Nothing else.

No wonder everyone tries to keep it vague, not exactly headline making stuff is it?

There's a bit more detail here if you're that interested: https://www.ashurst.com/publication-item.aspx?id_Content=8559

 

[gus-lopez]

No the judgement clearly states that by ignoring the £75 letter & second one, which are legally 'fees' the third one increasing the amount to £ 135 then becomes a penalty & illegal & unenforceable. Like everyone who knows does, just tell them the second word is off.

" The initial charge was £75, or £37.50 if paid within 14 days of the first letter. The trial judge held that this was not a penalty and was thus enforceable against the motorist. Failure to pay within a specified time saw the charge increase to £135. This was held to be a penalty, and therefore unenforceable."

 

[Deleted member 29692]

No the judgement clearly states that by ignoring the £75 letter & second one, which are legally 'fees' the third one increasing the amount to £ 135 then becomes a penalty & illegal & unenforceable.

No it doesn't. The judge said the third letter, the £135 one, "probably wouldn't be enforceable." The actual legality of the letter hadn't been tested and it wasn't tested as part of that hearing so the judge couldn't give any more of an opinion than that.

Either way Somerfield were aware of it at the time and made no attempt to influence or change it so that pretty much undermines any attempt to use it as justification to use it to repudiate the contract early.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}