Fed-up firms spend £6,000 on car park

The Bolton News: David Chadwick, foreground, on the car park with Jay Faruk, left, and Geoff Bateson David Chadwick, foreground, on the car park with Jay Faruk, left, and Geoff Bateson

NEIGHBOURING businesses in Astley Bridge are to share the £6,000 cost of a new car park to prevent their customers being charged up to £100 for parking their vehicles.

The Pavilion Indian Restaurant and Comms Consult have joined forces after a string of their visitors received demands for £100 — £60 if paid in within two weeks — for parking at the retail outlet housing The Range, Topps Tiles and Jolleyes.

The back of the two Blackburn Road businesses back on to Holland Street, next to the retail park where until six months ago many of their customers parked without penalty.

Work on their new car park behind the businesses will start in January. Local businessman David Chadwick, who received a “parking charge notice”, has hit out at the penalty.

The notice of the charge came from ParkingEye, a Chorley-based car firm operating on behalf of The Range, which photographed Mr Chadwick’s car while he was visiting the Pavilion.

“I was going to meet a friend for a meal at the Pavilion and the car park outside The Range, Topps Tiles and Jolleyes was virtually empty,” said the 54-year-old public relations consultant.

“I thought it would be fine to park there, especially as I’ve been a recent and frequent customer of all three of those stores. I didn’t see any sign saying I couldn’t park.

“So I was shocked and infuriated a week later when I received the demand. That was double the cost of my curry. I will not go to The Range again.”

Pavilion manager Jay Faruk says at least 15 of his customers had been fined.

“Our customers parked their regularly with no problem until about six months ago,” he said.

“We are aiming to provide about 20 spaces.”

Mr Geoff Bateson, managing director of neighbouring business Comms Consult, added: “Providing our own car park was the only alternative. It was bad for business having people charged like that.” A spokesman for ParkingEye said: “We were brought in to manage the car park at The Range as there was a serious problem of motorists parking there but using other facilities.

“The car park is monitored 24 hours a day to prevent such abuse, as well as any potential anti-social behaviour.

“All Range customers get two hours of free parking within store opening hours and there are 29 signs across the car park which clearly detail the terms and conditions of use.

“The vast majority of motorists follow these rules.

“It is clearly signposted that you cannot use the car park outside of the opening hours.

“Mr Chadwick left his vehicle outside these timestherefore he received a charge.”

Comments (25)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:23pm Fri 27 Dec 13

brian jones says...

No one should be paying private parking invoices anyway. Parking Eye have no interest in the land and therefore suffer no loss. They have been defeated on every occasion that a driver has taken their case to appeal at POPLA (the national parking appeal service). I believe the tally stands at over 80 losses for them not. And they are losing in court, too, because they cannot prove that their charges are a genuine pre-estimate of their loss. Anyone who receives such an invoice should NOT pay, but go directly to the moneysavingexpert or pepipoo forums for advice on how to appeal. Parkign Eye DO NOT manage car parks. They put up ANPR (which they cannot prove is accurate) and then send out invoices on the back of what they see. If there were parking problems, then The Range could get a firm in to genuinely manage their car park.
No one should be paying private parking invoices anyway. Parking Eye have no interest in the land and therefore suffer no loss. They have been defeated on every occasion that a driver has taken their case to appeal at POPLA (the national parking appeal service). I believe the tally stands at over 80 losses for them not. And they are losing in court, too, because they cannot prove that their charges are a genuine pre-estimate of their loss. Anyone who receives such an invoice should NOT pay, but go directly to the moneysavingexpert or pepipoo forums for advice on how to appeal. Parkign Eye DO NOT manage car parks. They put up ANPR (which they cannot prove is accurate) and then send out invoices on the back of what they see. If there were parking problems, then The Range could get a firm in to genuinely manage their car park. brian jones

12:33pm Fri 27 Dec 13

Harold 1 says...

It's blatant racketeering by The Range .The signs are very difficult to spot at night. I and many of my friends boycott the store and I'd advise others to do the same.
It's blatant racketeering by The Range .The signs are very difficult to spot at night. I and many of my friends boycott the store and I'd advise others to do the same. Harold 1

1:22pm Fri 27 Dec 13

MissPeg says...

Harold 1 wrote:
It's blatant racketeering by The Range .The signs are very difficult to spot at night. I and many of my friends boycott the store and I'd advise others to do the same.
Maybe the idea of an empty car park fining people for using it is a bit of a silly thing. But It doubt you can blame The Range solely for this issue. They are not the only people who have businesses on the car park. Besides, it's THEIR car park and they can choose what they allow to happen on said car park. It's not racketeering, it's business.

People should park on the new extended Asda car park across the road, which, if I recall, is not just for Asda but also for the businesses along Blackburn Road. There is also off road parking available on the streets behind. If people choose to park somewhere with signs that say you cannot park unless you're a customer/for a limited time only, then it is their own fault if they are charged a fine. It's well within the car park owners rights to fine people for using their property for reasons not stated as acceptable.
[quote][p][bold]Harold 1[/bold] wrote: It's blatant racketeering by The Range .The signs are very difficult to spot at night. I and many of my friends boycott the store and I'd advise others to do the same.[/p][/quote]Maybe the idea of an empty car park fining people for using it is a bit of a silly thing. But It doubt you can blame The Range solely for this issue. They are not the only people who have businesses on the car park. Besides, it's THEIR car park and they can choose what they allow to happen on said car park. It's not racketeering, it's business. People should park on the new extended Asda car park across the road, which, if I recall, is not just for Asda but also for the businesses along Blackburn Road. There is also off road parking available on the streets behind. If people choose to park somewhere with signs that say you cannot park unless you're a customer/for a limited time only, then it is their own fault if they are charged a fine. It's well within the car park owners rights to fine people for using their property for reasons not stated as acceptable. MissPeg

1:56pm Fri 27 Dec 13

SteveUK says...

"....It's well within the car park owners rights to fine people......"

No it is NOT! The courts, Police and Local Authorities can fine people. Private companies have no such power. They can send you an invoice, but unless it is clearly a (fair) contractual charge to which you agreed, or a demand for a sum to offset real losses caused by your action, they can go whistle.
"....It's well within the car park owners rights to fine people......" No it is NOT! The courts, Police and Local Authorities can fine people. Private companies have no such power. They can send you an invoice, but unless it is clearly a (fair) contractual charge to which you agreed, or a demand for a sum to offset real losses caused by your action, they can go whistle. SteveUK

2:06pm Fri 27 Dec 13

p.rhanna says...

I had one a few months ago on this very car park.....there letters make great paper aeroplanes. ..... my advice ...like many other people.....IGNORE...
IGNORE ...IGNORE. ... Dont shop at at the range either.....they are the people who have introduced the cameras....!
Its full ot Tat anyway !!!!
I had one a few months ago on this very car park.....there letters make great paper aeroplanes. ..... my advice ...like many other people.....IGNORE... IGNORE ...IGNORE. ... Dont shop at at the range either.....they are the people who have introduced the cameras....! Its full ot Tat anyway !!!! p.rhanna

2:08pm Fri 27 Dec 13

brian jones says...

MissPeg - you might be interested to know that it is NOT up to the car park owners to decide what happens on their car park. They have to abide by the law, including planning regulations. For example in one town, Aldi, who also incidentally use Parking Eye, have been in trouble for ticketing drivers for not using their store, when, in fact, the council gave them planning permission on condition that people using the town centre were also allowed to use the car park. As Steve pointed out, they are not fines, as they are not entitled to issue fines, and in fact, as Parking Eye cannot prove any losses, they are entitled to precisely zero. This isn't about the opinions of individuals, you see. It's about fact.
MissPeg - you might be interested to know that it is NOT up to the car park owners to decide what happens on their car park. They have to abide by the law, including planning regulations. For example in one town, Aldi, who also incidentally use Parking Eye, have been in trouble for ticketing drivers for not using their store, when, in fact, the council gave them planning permission on condition that people using the town centre were also allowed to use the car park. As Steve pointed out, they are not fines, as they are not entitled to issue fines, and in fact, as Parking Eye cannot prove any losses, they are entitled to precisely zero. This isn't about the opinions of individuals, you see. It's about fact. brian jones

2:12pm Fri 27 Dec 13

brian jones says...

p.rhanna wrote:
I had one a few months ago on this very car park.....there letters make great paper aeroplanes. ..... my advice ...like many other people.....IGNORE...

IGNORE ...IGNORE. ... Dont shop at at the range either.....they are the people who have introduced the cameras....!
Its full ot Tat anyway !!!!
I'm afraid that is old advice and should not be followed. Since a change in the law in October 2012, it is essential that the proper appeals procedure is followed. This is particularly important with Parking Eye who, in 2013, issued thousands of court claims. It turned out that the reason for this was to bump up the value of their company on paper. They managed to trick Capita into paying £57m for the company just a couple of months ago, on the basis of the number of invoices and court claims they'd issued. Anyone who receives a ticket should get on to pepipoo or MSE for some proper advice on how to defeat the ticket.
[quote][p][bold]p.rhanna[/bold] wrote: I had one a few months ago on this very car park.....there letters make great paper aeroplanes. ..... my advice ...like many other people.....IGNORE... IGNORE ...IGNORE. ... Dont shop at at the range either.....they are the people who have introduced the cameras....! Its full ot Tat anyway !!!![/p][/quote]I'm afraid that is old advice and should not be followed. Since a change in the law in October 2012, it is essential that the proper appeals procedure is followed. This is particularly important with Parking Eye who, in 2013, issued thousands of court claims. It turned out that the reason for this was to bump up the value of their company on paper. They managed to trick Capita into paying £57m for the company just a couple of months ago, on the basis of the number of invoices and court claims they'd issued. Anyone who receives a ticket should get on to pepipoo or MSE for some proper advice on how to defeat the ticket. brian jones

2:13pm Fri 27 Dec 13

SteveUK says...

p.rhanna wrote:
I had one a few months ago on this very car park.....there letters make great paper aeroplanes. ..... my advice ...like many other people.....IGNORE...

IGNORE ...IGNORE. ... Dont shop at at the range either.....they are the people who have introduced the cameras....!
Its full ot Tat anyway !!!!
It's best not to ignore nowadays (unless in Scotland) as some parking companies are trying court action especially against those who ignore completely.

As already stated by Brian in the first post, head on over to the Moneysavingexpert or Pepipoo forums where you'll get free advice which WILL see these sharks off.
[quote][p][bold]p.rhanna[/bold] wrote: I had one a few months ago on this very car park.....there letters make great paper aeroplanes. ..... my advice ...like many other people.....IGNORE... IGNORE ...IGNORE. ... Dont shop at at the range either.....they are the people who have introduced the cameras....! Its full ot Tat anyway !!!![/p][/quote]It's best not to ignore nowadays (unless in Scotland) as some parking companies are trying court action especially against those who ignore completely. As already stated by Brian in the first post, head on over to the Moneysavingexpert or Pepipoo forums where you'll get free advice which WILL see these sharks off. SteveUK

5:36pm Fri 27 Dec 13

thomas222 says...

Lets see what happens when people who dont shop at their shops park on their car park. How stupid they think its ok parking on someone elses car park that they pay the rent on....
Lets see what happens when people who dont shop at their shops park on their car park. How stupid they think its ok parking on someone elses car park that they pay the rent on.... thomas222

5:52pm Fri 27 Dec 13

Undetectableman says...

This Parking Eye shower are the same ones that got thrown off by Morrison's nationally and locally from the car park on Bury Road, Having had a ticket myself at Aldi in Bolton (successfully appealed) This was issued at the time of roadworks on the junction with Bolton One which caused traffic delays leaving the park and was for being 3/4 minutes outside the time allowed. As many have said before Boycott the stores who employ this lot but let the store know why hopefully this will eventually stop this abhorrent practice. I still want to know how Taxi's manage to avoid the charge as it is also administered for vehicles returning to the site within a two hour period(one to watch for when you buy something which on unpacking proves to be faulty and needs to be returned to the store)
This Parking Eye shower are the same ones that got thrown off by Morrison's nationally and locally from the car park on Bury Road, Having had a ticket myself at Aldi in Bolton (successfully appealed) This was issued at the time of roadworks on the junction with Bolton One which caused traffic delays leaving the park and was for being 3/4 minutes outside the time allowed. As many have said before Boycott the stores who employ this lot but let the store know why hopefully this will eventually stop this abhorrent practice. I still want to know how Taxi's manage to avoid the charge as it is also administered for vehicles returning to the site within a two hour period(one to watch for when you buy something which on unpacking proves to be faulty and needs to be returned to the store) Undetectableman

7:38pm Fri 27 Dec 13

p.rhanna says...

http://forums.pepipo
o.com/index.php?show
topic=46975

Ignore .......!!!
I have received lots of these throughout the uk and have never paid anything to parking eye
The above thread explains everything in full.
Including new legislation. .....they amount to nothing more than begging letters in my opinion ....!!
http://forums.pepipo o.com/index.php?show topic=46975 Ignore .......!!! I have received lots of these throughout the uk and have never paid anything to parking eye The above thread explains everything in full. Including new legislation. .....they amount to nothing more than begging letters in my opinion ....!! p.rhanna

9:03pm Fri 27 Dec 13

mililly says...

Ive had a parking eye ticket..forgot to log my car in at mecca bolton. I ignoredcit and 3 other letters and havev heard nothing since...if you go into moneysavingexpert martin lewis always states to ignore as they have no right to fine you.
Ive had a parking eye ticket..forgot to log my car in at mecca bolton. I ignoredcit and 3 other letters and havev heard nothing since...if you go into moneysavingexpert martin lewis always states to ignore as they have no right to fine you. mililly

10:33pm Fri 27 Dec 13

brian jones says...

mililly wrote:
Ive had a parking eye ticket..forgot to log my car in at mecca bolton. I ignoredcit and 3 other letters and havev heard nothing since...if you go into moneysavingexpert martin lewis always states to ignore as they have no right to fine you.
The advice has changed since new legislation came into force last year. You should never ignore any more, but o o MSE or pepipoo for advice.
[quote][p][bold]mililly[/bold] wrote: Ive had a parking eye ticket..forgot to log my car in at mecca bolton. I ignoredcit and 3 other letters and havev heard nothing since...if you go into moneysavingexpert martin lewis always states to ignore as they have no right to fine you.[/p][/quote]The advice has changed since new legislation came into force last year. You should never ignore any more, but o o MSE or pepipoo for advice. brian jones

11:39pm Fri 27 Dec 13

p.rhanna says...

Webmaster
Group Icon

Group: Root Admin
Posts: 4,614
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
From: Wokingham, UK
Member No.: 2



When dealing with "tickets" from private parking companies (PPCs) our advice is either:

1) Ignore all communications (other than in the extremely unlikely event that you receive genuine court papers - there were only 49 cases going to court last year out of over one million tickets issued); or

2) In England and Wales only, and if the PPC is a member of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme (BPA AOS), appeal to the PPC using any of the applicable grounds below and then appeal to the independent Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA) service (see below for further details). If the appeal is unsuccessful then ignore subsequent correspondence from the PPC.


How Do You Know if Your Ticket is a PPC Ticket or Not?
Legitimate Council tickets will be called a "Penalty Charge Notice" or "Excess Charge Notice" and will have the Council's address on them.
A police ticket will be called a "Fixed Penalty Notice" and have either a police or HM Courts Service address on it.
It's possible for parking tickets at some airports, train stations, ports and other locations to be issued under Byelaws, which would be enforced through the Magistrates Courts. However this is very unusual, and the vast majority of parking tickets that mention Byelaws are actually issued by PPCs relying on contract law. If you receive one of these tickets it's best to start your own thread and post the details, so that you can be sure what kind of ticket you're dealing with.
If it's not called one of the above and it's got a private address on it then the chances are that it's a PPC "ticket". Note that the "tickets" we're talking about here are those that attempt to penalise you for some supposed breach of the parking terms and conditions (often asking for £50 or more), not genuine parking charges that you've agreed to (maybe for something like 60p/hour).


Legal Enforceability of Private Parking Tickets

There is a great deal of doubt about the legal enforceability of private parking invoices that are issued to motorists. Unlike parking tickets issued by local authorities, which are backed by statute, the enforcement of private parking is essentially a matter of contract law. A private parking company needs to overcome many significant legal hurdles in order to be successful, which include:
Establishing that any claim is under the law of contract, rather than the tort of trespass (see case of Excel Parking Services v Alan Matthews, Wrexham County Court, May 2009 where the parking company lost on this ground);
Establishing that the parking company has sufficient interest in the land to bring a claim (see case of VCS v. HM Revenue & Customs, Upper Tax Tribunal, a binding decision at the level of the High Court) in which it was decided that unless the PPC has a proprietary interest in the land they are not able to offer contracts for parking;
Establishing that all of the elements of a contract (offer, acceptance, consideration) are present;
Except in England and Wales, establishing who the driver was on the relevant occasion, as any contract can only be enforced against the driver, who may or may not be the registered keeper of the vehicle;
Establishing the prominence and adequacy of any warning signage, and that the driver actually saw and understood the signage (Waltham Forest v Vine );
Establishing that the amount claimed is not an unlawful “penalty”, including that there was no attempt to “frighten and intimidate” the driver (see well reported case of Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman
, Mansfield County Court, March 2008 where the parking company lost on this ground), and that charges must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss, or actual damages caused by trespass (see the Department of Transport's guidance on the Protection of Freedoms Act);
Establishing that any contract does not fail foul of the Unfair Contract Terms Act and associated regulations.

Protection of Freedoms Act (England and Wales only)

In England and Wales the Protection of Freedoms Act has introduced some changes that might affect your decision whether to simply ignore a PPC ticket. These changes apply only to parking companies that are also members of the BPA AOS scheme, and are principally:
The PPC may "invite" (not demand, nor require) the RK to provide the details of the driver at the time of the alleged transgression. If the RK doesn't do so, or their invitation is ignored, the PPC is entitled to pursue the RK for whatever charge they are lawfully entitled to from the driver. If the RK does give the name of the driver, the PPC must solely pursue the driver. Therefore as long as the PPC goes through the correct process, relying solely on the argument that "I was not the driver" won't help you. However that is the only change, and if the decision is to ignore then it simply means that the RK ignores rather than the driver.
There is an independent "appeals" process, operated by Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA). The grounds on which POPLA will consider an appeal look to be narrow and until the first appeals are heard we don't know the stance it will take. However the appeal costs you nothing and costs the PPC £27+ VAT, so we would recommend that everyone who is so inclined appeals. The best grounds seem to be:
"The parking charge (ticket) exceeds the relevant amount" (if the charge is not valid it should be zero), and;
"I am not liable for the parking charge" (if the charge is an unlawful penalty, or the PPC has no interest in the land to offer a contract, etc there will be no liability)
Even if you lose at POPLA, it's not binding on you and the PPC would still have to go to court if they wanted to pursue their claim. Note that you will have to exhaust the PPC's own so-called "appeals" process before POPLA will consider an appeal to them.
You should be aware that the Protection of Freedoms Act doesn't affect the legal position regarding enforceability of these tickets in any way.


Exceptions to Advice to Ignore PPC Tickets

A PPC will normally obtain the name and address of the vehicle's Registered Keeper from DVLA, and pursue them for their ticket. In some cases where you were the driver but are not the RK, leaving the PPC to pursue the RK might be more hassle or more expensive than providing your details to the PPC, naming yourself as the driver and putting up with the junk mail yourself. For example:
You drive a Company car. Your employers may be unhappy about receiving a stream of claims from the PPC/debt collectors, and it could affect your relationship with them;
You were driving a hire car, and may incur administration charges from the hire company for dealing with the PPC letters;
The RK is a friend or relative who may find it too stressful to receive the threatening PPC letters (particularly since they won't have the same level of understanding as you do now!).
In these circumstances you might wish to write to the PPC telling them that you were the driver, and then carry on ignoring them after that.


Additional Information

This link will take you to a You Tube video of a BBC Watchdog piece on PPCs.

This summary of our recommendations and the background to them addresses the most common situations people describe in the forums. Individual circumstances do of course vary, and the decision what to do is ultimately yours, so if you are in any doubt please start your own thread for further help.
Webmaster Group Icon Group: Root Admin Posts: 4,614 Joined: 30 Mar 2003 From: Wokingham, UK Member No.: 2 When dealing with "tickets" from private parking companies (PPCs) our advice is either: 1) Ignore all communications (other than in the extremely unlikely event that you receive genuine court papers - there were only 49 cases going to court last year out of over one million tickets issued); or 2) In England and Wales only, and if the PPC is a member of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme (BPA AOS), appeal to the PPC using any of the applicable grounds below and then appeal to the independent Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA) service (see below for further details). If the appeal is unsuccessful then ignore subsequent correspondence from the PPC. How Do You Know if Your Ticket is a PPC Ticket or Not? Legitimate Council tickets will be called a "Penalty Charge Notice" or "Excess Charge Notice" and will have the Council's address on them. A police ticket will be called a "Fixed Penalty Notice" and have either a police or HM Courts Service address on it. It's possible for parking tickets at some airports, train stations, ports and other locations to be issued under Byelaws, which would be enforced through the Magistrates Courts. However this is very unusual, and the vast majority of parking tickets that mention Byelaws are actually issued by PPCs relying on contract law. If you receive one of these tickets it's best to start your own thread and post the details, so that you can be sure what kind of ticket you're dealing with. If it's not called one of the above and it's got a private address on it then the chances are that it's a PPC "ticket". Note that the "tickets" we're talking about here are those that attempt to penalise you for some supposed breach of the parking terms and conditions (often asking for £50 or more), not genuine parking charges that you've agreed to (maybe for something like 60p/hour). Legal Enforceability of Private Parking Tickets There is a great deal of doubt about the legal enforceability of private parking invoices that are issued to motorists. Unlike parking tickets issued by local authorities, which are backed by statute, the enforcement of private parking is essentially a matter of contract law. A private parking company needs to overcome many significant legal hurdles in order to be successful, which include: Establishing that any claim is under the law of contract, rather than the tort of trespass (see case of Excel Parking Services v Alan Matthews, Wrexham County Court, May 2009 where the parking company lost on this ground); Establishing that the parking company has sufficient interest in the land to bring a claim (see case of VCS v. HM Revenue & Customs, Upper Tax Tribunal, a binding decision at the level of the High Court) in which it was decided that unless the PPC has a proprietary interest in the land they are not able to offer contracts for parking; Establishing that all of the elements of a contract (offer, acceptance, consideration) are present; Except in England and Wales, establishing who the driver was on the relevant occasion, as any contract can only be enforced against the driver, who may or may not be the registered keeper of the vehicle; Establishing the prominence and adequacy of any warning signage, and that the driver actually saw and understood the signage (Waltham Forest v Vine [CCRTF 98/1290/B2]); Establishing that the amount claimed is not an unlawful “penalty”, including that there was no attempt to “frighten and intimidate” the driver (see well reported case of Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman , Mansfield County Court, March 2008 where the parking company lost on this ground), and that charges must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss, or actual damages caused by trespass (see the Department of Transport's guidance on the Protection of Freedoms Act); Establishing that any contract does not fail foul of the Unfair Contract Terms Act and associated regulations. Protection of Freedoms Act (England and Wales only) In England and Wales the Protection of Freedoms Act has introduced some changes that might affect your decision whether to simply ignore a PPC ticket. These changes apply only to parking companies that are also members of the BPA AOS scheme, and are principally: The PPC may "invite" (not demand, nor require) the RK to provide the details of the driver at the time of the alleged transgression. If the RK doesn't do so, or their invitation is ignored, the PPC is entitled to pursue the RK for whatever charge they are lawfully entitled to from the driver. If the RK does give the name of the driver, the PPC must solely pursue the driver. Therefore as long as the PPC goes through the correct process, relying solely on the argument that "I was not the driver" won't help you. However that is the only change, and if the decision is to ignore then it simply means that the RK ignores rather than the driver. There is an independent "appeals" process, operated by Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA). The grounds on which POPLA will consider an appeal look to be narrow and until the first appeals are heard we don't know the stance it will take. However the appeal costs you nothing and costs the PPC £27+ VAT, so we would recommend that everyone who is so inclined appeals. The best grounds seem to be: "The parking charge (ticket) exceeds the relevant amount" (if the charge is not valid it should be zero), and; "I am not liable for the parking charge" (if the charge is an unlawful penalty, or the PPC has no interest in the land to offer a contract, etc there will be no liability) Even if you lose at POPLA, it's not binding on you and the PPC would still have to go to court if they wanted to pursue their claim. Note that you will have to exhaust the PPC's own so-called "appeals" process before POPLA will consider an appeal to them. You should be aware that the Protection of Freedoms Act doesn't affect the legal position regarding enforceability of these tickets in any way. Exceptions to Advice to Ignore PPC Tickets A PPC will normally obtain the name and address of the vehicle's Registered Keeper from DVLA, and pursue them for their ticket. In some cases where you were the driver but are not the RK, leaving the PPC to pursue the RK might be more hassle or more expensive than providing your details to the PPC, naming yourself as the driver and putting up with the junk mail yourself. For example: You drive a Company car. Your employers may be unhappy about receiving a stream of claims from the PPC/debt collectors, and it could affect your relationship with them; You were driving a hire car, and may incur administration charges from the hire company for dealing with the PPC letters; The RK is a friend or relative who may find it too stressful to receive the threatening PPC letters (particularly since they won't have the same level of understanding as you do now!). In these circumstances you might wish to write to the PPC telling them that you were the driver, and then carry on ignoring them after that. Additional Information This link will take you to a You Tube video of a BBC Watchdog piece on PPCs. This summary of our recommendations and the background to them addresses the most common situations people describe in the forums. Individual circumstances do of course vary, and the decision what to do is ultimately yours, so if you are in any doubt please start your own thread for further help. p.rhanna

2:52pm Sat 28 Dec 13

Parking Prankster says...

Landowners have the right to manage their land, but not to impose fines. The law says that they can charge their losses. For an empty car park at night, the landowner losses will be zero. Therefore if they really wanted to keep people out they would put up barriers at night. Currently it is just a money-making scheme for parkingeye, with no benefit to the landowner at all.

POPLA agree with this reasoning, and have cancelled all parkingeye tickets where this issue is raised. Here is a link to know results.

http://forums.moneys
avingexpert.com/show
thread.php?t=4488337
&page=38

ParkingEye cases are approaching 100.

Therefore to get any parkingeye ticket cancelled, appeal to parkingeye on the grounds their charge is not a pre-estimate of loss. They will send 5 pages of waffle. Then appeal to POPLA stating the same and your appeal will be upheld
Landowners have the right to manage their land, but not to impose fines. The law says that they can charge their losses. For an empty car park at night, the landowner losses will be zero. Therefore if they really wanted to keep people out they would put up barriers at night. Currently it is just a money-making scheme for parkingeye, with no benefit to the landowner at all. POPLA agree with this reasoning, and have cancelled all parkingeye tickets where this issue is raised. Here is a link to know results. http://forums.moneys avingexpert.com/show thread.php?t=4488337 &page=38 ParkingEye cases are approaching 100. Therefore to get any parkingeye ticket cancelled, appeal to parkingeye on the grounds their charge is not a pre-estimate of loss. They will send 5 pages of waffle. Then appeal to POPLA stating the same and your appeal will be upheld Parking Prankster

11:47pm Sat 28 Dec 13

waterbottle says...

Why not use the Asda car park that's always empty on that side
Why not use the Asda car park that's always empty on that side waterbottle

9:02am Sun 29 Dec 13

johnnywomble9 says...

brian jones wrote:
No one should be paying private parking invoices anyway. Parking Eye have no interest in the land and therefore suffer no loss. They have been defeated on every occasion that a driver has taken their case to appeal at POPLA (the national parking appeal service). I believe the tally stands at over 80 losses for them not. And they are losing in court, too, because they cannot prove that their charges are a genuine pre-estimate of their loss. Anyone who receives such an invoice should NOT pay, but go directly to the moneysavingexpert or pepipoo forums for advice on how to appeal. Parkign Eye DO NOT manage car parks. They put up ANPR (which they cannot prove is accurate) and then send out invoices on the back of what they see. If there were parking problems, then The Range could get a firm in to genuinely manage their car park.
I know they cant enforce these fines but you are wrong about popla. My mum recently appealed after receiving fine for using their car park for 59 seconds for turning round in their car park and popla found in favour of parking eye
[quote][p][bold]brian jones[/bold] wrote: No one should be paying private parking invoices anyway. Parking Eye have no interest in the land and therefore suffer no loss. They have been defeated on every occasion that a driver has taken their case to appeal at POPLA (the national parking appeal service). I believe the tally stands at over 80 losses for them not. And they are losing in court, too, because they cannot prove that their charges are a genuine pre-estimate of their loss. Anyone who receives such an invoice should NOT pay, but go directly to the moneysavingexpert or pepipoo forums for advice on how to appeal. Parkign Eye DO NOT manage car parks. They put up ANPR (which they cannot prove is accurate) and then send out invoices on the back of what they see. If there were parking problems, then The Range could get a firm in to genuinely manage their car park.[/p][/quote]I know they cant enforce these fines but you are wrong about popla. My mum recently appealed after receiving fine for using their car park for 59 seconds for turning round in their car park and popla found in favour of parking eye johnnywomble9

9:04am Sun 29 Dec 13

johnnywomble9 says...

MissPeg wrote:
Harold 1 wrote:
It's blatant racketeering by The Range .The signs are very difficult to spot at night. I and many of my friends boycott the store and I'd advise others to do the same.
Maybe the idea of an empty car park fining people for using it is a bit of a silly thing. But It doubt you can blame The Range solely for this issue. They are not the only people who have businesses on the car park. Besides, it's THEIR car park and they can choose what they allow to happen on said car park. It's not racketeering, it's business.

People should park on the new extended Asda car park across the road, which, if I recall, is not just for Asda but also for the businesses along Blackburn Road. There is also off road parking available on the streets behind. If people choose to park somewhere with signs that say you cannot park unless you're a customer/for a limited time only, then it is their own fault if they are charged a fine. It's well within the car park owners rights to fine people for using their property for reasons not stated as acceptable.
Why not just put a barrier up. .....
[quote][p][bold]MissPeg[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harold 1[/bold] wrote: It's blatant racketeering by The Range .The signs are very difficult to spot at night. I and many of my friends boycott the store and I'd advise others to do the same.[/p][/quote]Maybe the idea of an empty car park fining people for using it is a bit of a silly thing. But It doubt you can blame The Range solely for this issue. They are not the only people who have businesses on the car park. Besides, it's THEIR car park and they can choose what they allow to happen on said car park. It's not racketeering, it's business. People should park on the new extended Asda car park across the road, which, if I recall, is not just for Asda but also for the businesses along Blackburn Road. There is also off road parking available on the streets behind. If people choose to park somewhere with signs that say you cannot park unless you're a customer/for a limited time only, then it is their own fault if they are charged a fine. It's well within the car park owners rights to fine people for using their property for reasons not stated as acceptable.[/p][/quote]Why not just put a barrier up. ..... johnnywomble9

8:29am Mon 30 Dec 13

brian jones says...

johnnywomble9 wrote:
brian jones wrote:
No one should be paying private parking invoices anyway. Parking Eye have no interest in the land and therefore suffer no loss. They have been defeated on every occasion that a driver has taken their case to appeal at POPLA (the national parking appeal service). I believe the tally stands at over 80 losses for them not. And they are losing in court, too, because they cannot prove that their charges are a genuine pre-estimate of their loss. Anyone who receives such an invoice should NOT pay, but go directly to the moneysavingexpert or pepipoo forums for advice on how to appeal. Parkign Eye DO NOT manage car parks. They put up ANPR (which they cannot prove is accurate) and then send out invoices on the back of what they see. If there were parking problems, then The Range could get a firm in to genuinely manage their car park.
I know they cant enforce these fines but you are wrong about popla. My mum recently appealed after receiving fine for using their car park for 59 seconds for turning round in their car park and popla found in favour of parking eye
She didn't appeal correctly, in that case. Hope she didn't pay. Popla decisions are not binding on the motorist.
[quote][p][bold]johnnywomble9[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brian jones[/bold] wrote: No one should be paying private parking invoices anyway. Parking Eye have no interest in the land and therefore suffer no loss. They have been defeated on every occasion that a driver has taken their case to appeal at POPLA (the national parking appeal service). I believe the tally stands at over 80 losses for them not. And they are losing in court, too, because they cannot prove that their charges are a genuine pre-estimate of their loss. Anyone who receives such an invoice should NOT pay, but go directly to the moneysavingexpert or pepipoo forums for advice on how to appeal. Parkign Eye DO NOT manage car parks. They put up ANPR (which they cannot prove is accurate) and then send out invoices on the back of what they see. If there were parking problems, then The Range could get a firm in to genuinely manage their car park.[/p][/quote]I know they cant enforce these fines but you are wrong about popla. My mum recently appealed after receiving fine for using their car park for 59 seconds for turning round in their car park and popla found in favour of parking eye[/p][/quote]She didn't appeal correctly, in that case. Hope she didn't pay. Popla decisions are not binding on the motorist. brian jones

10:53am Mon 30 Dec 13

nozza17 says...

Ignore, they can't prove whether it was you or someone else using your car anyway. Unlike a speeding fine or council parking fine you do not have to disclose to any third party firm who was in charge of your car when it was being used.

Works for me everywhere I park unless a council operated car park such as NCP.
Ignore, they can't prove whether it was you or someone else using your car anyway. Unlike a speeding fine or council parking fine you do not have to disclose to any third party firm who was in charge of your car when it was being used. Works for me everywhere I park unless a council operated car park such as NCP. nozza17

1:55pm Mon 30 Dec 13

atlas123 says...

johnnywomble9 wrote:
brian jones wrote:
No one should be paying private parking invoices anyway. Parking Eye have no interest in the land and therefore suffer no loss. They have been defeated on every occasion that a driver has taken their case to appeal at POPLA (the national parking appeal service). I believe the tally stands at over 80 losses for them not. And they are losing in court, too, because they cannot prove that their charges are a genuine pre-estimate of their loss. Anyone who receives such an invoice should NOT pay, but go directly to the moneysavingexpert or pepipoo forums for advice on how to appeal. Parkign Eye DO NOT manage car parks. They put up ANPR (which they cannot prove is accurate) and then send out invoices on the back of what they see. If there were parking problems, then The Range could get a firm in to genuinely manage their car park.
I know they cant enforce these fines but you are wrong about popla. My mum recently appealed after receiving fine for using their car park for 59 seconds for turning round in their car park and popla found in favour of parking eye
Still don't pay...


One company is still sending me waffle 2 years later claiming to have sold the debt on....


What I want to know is when you get a letter without a stamp on, not franked but with one of those Royal Mail Contract numbers on, does everytime it gets posted charge the company? I just keep posing the letter back to myslef in the hope they incur charges.
[quote][p][bold]johnnywomble9[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brian jones[/bold] wrote: No one should be paying private parking invoices anyway. Parking Eye have no interest in the land and therefore suffer no loss. They have been defeated on every occasion that a driver has taken their case to appeal at POPLA (the national parking appeal service). I believe the tally stands at over 80 losses for them not. And they are losing in court, too, because they cannot prove that their charges are a genuine pre-estimate of their loss. Anyone who receives such an invoice should NOT pay, but go directly to the moneysavingexpert or pepipoo forums for advice on how to appeal. Parkign Eye DO NOT manage car parks. They put up ANPR (which they cannot prove is accurate) and then send out invoices on the back of what they see. If there were parking problems, then The Range could get a firm in to genuinely manage their car park.[/p][/quote]I know they cant enforce these fines but you are wrong about popla. My mum recently appealed after receiving fine for using their car park for 59 seconds for turning round in their car park and popla found in favour of parking eye[/p][/quote]Still don't pay... One company is still sending me waffle 2 years later claiming to have sold the debt on.... What I want to know is when you get a letter without a stamp on, not franked but with one of those Royal Mail Contract numbers on, does everytime it gets posted charge the company? I just keep posing the letter back to myslef in the hope they incur charges. atlas123

4:12pm Mon 30 Dec 13

brian jones says...

nozza17 wrote:
Ignore, they can't prove whether it was you or someone else using your car anyway. Unlike a speeding fine or council parking fine you do not have to disclose to any third party firm who was in charge of your car when it was being used.

Works for me everywhere I park unless a council operated car park such as NCP.
That's poor advice, I'm afraid. Parking Eye do take motorists to court, and as the law changed in October 2012, ignoring an invoice is no longer an option.
[quote][p][bold]nozza17[/bold] wrote: Ignore, they can't prove whether it was you or someone else using your car anyway. Unlike a speeding fine or council parking fine you do not have to disclose to any third party firm who was in charge of your car when it was being used. Works for me everywhere I park unless a council operated car park such as NCP.[/p][/quote]That's poor advice, I'm afraid. Parking Eye do take motorists to court, and as the law changed in October 2012, ignoring an invoice is no longer an option. brian jones

5:23pm Mon 30 Dec 13

atlas123 says...

brian jones wrote:
nozza17 wrote:
Ignore, they can't prove whether it was you or someone else using your car anyway. Unlike a speeding fine or council parking fine you do not have to disclose to any third party firm who was in charge of your car when it was being used.

Works for me everywhere I park unless a council operated car park such as NCP.
That's poor advice, I'm afraid. Parking Eye do take motorists to court, and as the law changed in October 2012, ignoring an invoice is no longer an option.
In most cases ignoring the invoice/notice is the preferred option, I refer you to the above information and to Pepipoo.

Responding to requests regarding who was driving is a different matter, by and large respond....
[quote][p][bold]brian jones[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nozza17[/bold] wrote: Ignore, they can't prove whether it was you or someone else using your car anyway. Unlike a speeding fine or council parking fine you do not have to disclose to any third party firm who was in charge of your car when it was being used. Works for me everywhere I park unless a council operated car park such as NCP.[/p][/quote]That's poor advice, I'm afraid. Parking Eye do take motorists to court, and as the law changed in October 2012, ignoring an invoice is no longer an option.[/p][/quote]In most cases ignoring the invoice/notice is the preferred option, I refer you to the above information and to Pepipoo. Responding to requests regarding who was driving is a different matter, by and large respond.... atlas123

10:32pm Mon 30 Dec 13

LCTAC01 says...

Parking Eye are actually breaking the law. I recently received a letter from them saying that I owed them £100 for parking at the Range or £60 if I paid within 2 weeks. I took legal advice and was informed that it's not a fine as they can't fine you, but what they can do is send you an invoice for parking there.
There is not a court in the land that would support this invoice, because it's not backed by the local authority and therefore it becomes a civil matter.
It's a game of bluff, because if you appeal to popla, it actually cost the company about £40 if they attempt to prove any form of guilt, this is not something that they want to do.What they hope will happen is that you will take the option to pay early,thus avoiding any possible legal issues. (It's a scare tactic that has a lot of success).
Also if you look into the definition of a road, you will notice that unless there is a barrier, it is actually a public highway. When the barrier is down it is private land when it's raised it's not private land.
An example of this is Morrisons supermarket at Harwood,when the store is open the barrier is up thus becoming a public highway ,when they close the store the barrier is down and it becomes private land.
This particular company operate from a PO box address in Chorley which is untracable,I should know because I spent weeks trying to find it.
Do not pay, because as I originally stated it's an invoice, not a fine and it can't be enforced by any criminal court.
Parking Eye are actually breaking the law. I recently received a letter from them saying that I owed them £100 for parking at the Range or £60 if I paid within 2 weeks. I took legal advice and was informed that it's not a fine as they can't fine you, but what they can do is send you an invoice for parking there. There is not a court in the land that would support this invoice, because it's not backed by the local authority and therefore it becomes a civil matter. It's a game of bluff, because if you appeal to popla, it actually cost the company about £40 if they attempt to prove any form of guilt, this is not something that they want to do.What they hope will happen is that you will take the option to pay early,thus avoiding any possible legal issues. (It's a scare tactic that has a lot of success). Also if you look into the definition of a road, you will notice that unless there is a barrier, it is actually a public highway. When the barrier is down it is private land when it's raised it's not private land. An example of this is Morrisons supermarket at Harwood,when the store is open the barrier is up thus becoming a public highway ,when they close the store the barrier is down and it becomes private land. This particular company operate from a PO box address in Chorley which is untracable,I should know because I spent weeks trying to find it. Do not pay, because as I originally stated it's an invoice, not a fine and it can't be enforced by any criminal court. LCTAC01

3:59pm Wed 1 Jan 14

Rememberscarborough says...

Just wondering why businesses are allowed to operate without providing sufficient parking for customers. Just assuming their customers can park their cars on other people's property shouldn't be an option.

Maybe The Range can sell off their car park and let their customers park on The Pavillion's beautiful new car park...
Just wondering why businesses are allowed to operate without providing sufficient parking for customers. Just assuming their customers can park their cars on other people's property shouldn't be an option. Maybe The Range can sell off their car park and let their customers park on The Pavillion's beautiful new car park... Rememberscarborough

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree