DJ finds that "on the balance of probability" ParkingEye DID receive letters

[Web Admin]

Stretton couple's delight after court case judgement

A COUPLE challenging fees demanded by a parking firm which claimed it had not received their letters have won a court case.

Simon and Natalie Adams, from Stretton, said they were 'ecstatic' after a judge at Derby County Court said she believed they had written the letters and ruled they did not need to pay a penny of the £215 requested by ParkingEye.

"We've just had 18 months of torture because of threats of county court judgements and taking us to court and we're just so relieved it's all over," said Mrs Adams, 31.

Their parking fee saga began when Mr Adams, 38, visited Family Bargains, off Horninglow Road, in Burton on December 20, 2012, and outstayed the allowed parking time by 15 minutes.

ParkingEye, which manage car parking at the site, sent Mr Adams a letter – dated December 29 – with photographs of his car arriving at 1.01pm and leaving at 4.16pm.

A notice at the site stated '3 hour max stay - customer only car park'.

The letter asked him to pay £60 within two weeks or £100 within a month and said he could appeal by sending store receipts. Mrs Adams told the court that in January 2013 they sent a letter to appeal the £100 charge, including the receipt of the money spent by Mr Adams in Family Bargains. Then again in February 2013, after the firm said it had not received the first letter.

There was further correspondence between them in July last year by phone and email, with ParkingEye saying it had not received any proof of Mr Adams using the store. The couple told the court they then sent another letter attaching the bank statement.

They thought that was the end of it, but in November last year, Mr Adams received a court letter demanding the sum of £165.

He emailed ParkingEye and received a reply, which said the firm had never received any of his letters and a County Court Claim had been lodged against him for a £165 parking penalty plus £50 costs for it having to go to court.

At the end of the hearing District Judge Elizabeth Williscroft said: "There's a dispute between the parties whether the defendant and his wife did provide proof of purchase over some period of time.

She said ParkingEye said it did not receive correspondence but ruled, on the balance of probability, that it did.


http://www.burtonmail.co.uk/Stretton-couple-s-delight-court-case-judgement/story-21660836-detail/story.html

[The Bald Eagle]

And in my humble opinion, based on "the balance of probability", I think I can safely conclude that ParkingEye are a bunch of lying, bullying, weasel cowboys who need to be stopped.

[Belplasca]

He emailed ParkingEye and received a reply, which said the firm had never received any of his letters and a County Court Claim had been lodged against him for a £165 parking penalty plus £50 costs for it having to go to court.

So, ParkingEye imposed a "PARKING PENALTY"? Isn't that sufficiently illegal to get the whole thing thrown out anyway?

Bob

[The Bald Eagle]

He emailed ParkingEye and received a reply, which said the firm had never received any of his letters and a County Court Claim had been lodged against him for a £165 parking penalty plus £50 costs for it having to go to court.

So, ParkingEye imposed a "PARKING PENALTY"? Isn't that sufficiently illegal to get the whole thing thrown out anyway?

Bob

I think you will find this is a case of poor journalism Bob.

[Web Admin]

Same case - different paper.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Motorist ‘ecstatic’ after Derby court victory over giant parking firm’s fine

A MOTORIST took on a giant parking firm that fined him for over-staying his ticket by 15 minutes – and won.

Simon Adams was furious when he was slapped with a £60 fine after parking outside a branch of discount store Family Bargains.

After he refused to pay, the fine and costs rose to £215, and firm ParkingEye took him to Derby County Court.

But a judge ruled Simon and wife Natalie were “convincing witnesses”, and threw the case out.

Simon and Natalie said they were “ecstatic”.

“We’ve just had 18 months of torture because of threats of county court judgments and taking us to court and we’re just so relieved it’s all over,” said Mrs Adams, 31.

Their parking fee saga began when Mr Adams, 38, visited Family Bargains in Burton on December 20, 2012, and outstayed the allowed parking time by 15 minutes.

ParkingEye, which manage car parking at the site, sent Mr Adams a letter – dated December 29 – with photographs of his car arriving at 1.01pm and leaving at 4.16pm. A notice at the site stated “Three hour max stay – customer-only car park”. The letter asked him to pay £60 within two weeks or £100 within a month and said he could appeal by sending store receipts.

Mrs Adams said that, in January 2013, they sent a letter to appeal against the £100 charge, including the receipt of the money spent by Mr Adams in Family Bargains, then a copy in February 2013, after the firm said it had not received the first letter.

There was further correspondence between them in July last year by phone and e-mail, with ParkingEye saying it had not received any proof of Mr Adams using the store. The couple told the court they sent another letter attaching their bank statement.

They thought that was the end of it but, in November last year, Mr Adams received a court letter demanding the sum of £165.

He e-mailed ParkingEye and received a reply, which said the firm had never received any of his letters and a County Court claim had been lodged against him for a £165 parking penalty plus £50 costs for it having to go to court.

The letter also stated: “Had you corresponded with us earlier, explaining that you were a genuine customer and provided proof... we would have assessed the case and we could have resolved the matter.”

At the court, where the couple represented themselves and ParkingEye was represented by a solicitor who refused to give his name to the Derby Telegraph, District Judge Elizabeth Williscroft said she believed they had written the letters and ruled they did not need to pay a penny.

She said: “I thought that the defendants were convincing witnesses.”

She said ParkingEye said it did not receive correspondence but ruled, on the balance of probability, that it did.

“And if they had got to the right person in the organisation this would not have come to court,” the judge added.

ParkingEye was unavailable for comment yesterday.


http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/Motorist-8216-ecstatic-8217-Derby-court-victory/story-21658621-detail/story.html

[Ewan Hoosami]

I've just had a reminder to pay my Parking(sh)Eye(sters) sPeCulative iNvoice but I don't need reminding that I don't give a monkeys.

   Muahahahaha

[DastardlyDick]

I believe this is called "presumption of service" - it is presumed that if you post a correctly addressed letter with correct postage paid it will be delivered 1 - 3 working days afterwards depending on whether it's 1st or 2nd Class. It's virtually impossible to refute, as you'd have to prove a negative.