Forums Forums Wirral Information Law And Your Rights Prenton Aldi : Car parking Charge Notice

Hello, I remember recently reading on wiki Wirral about someone who had a car parking charge notice but wasn't a council appointed parking notice, I was wondering if anyone could link me to this please?. If not can anybody help me out, My in laws recently got a car parking charge notice for entering Aldi car park in prenton at 13:43 and leaving at 15:29 they were in the car park for 1 hour 46 minuets, Is there a limit to this car park as I have never noticed one before on previous visits, also the company is parkingEye?

Im just wondering if this is correct and there is a limit to this carpark? Thank you

The details will be correct but Aldi seem to be very approachable over such things. They advise you to do this; Please email our Customer Services team regarding this - they will be able to help. Their address is [email protected]

I know some or all Lidl stores have an hour and a half limit so it may be the same for all similar supermarkets. The one near TJ Hughes in London Rd, Liverpool definitely has this and there are signs advertising this fact.

The Prenton Aldi signs were changed not that long ago, they have always had a sign at the entrance to the car park. However, there might have been a period when it was obscured, there are other signs round the car park though.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.3...3m4!1e1!3m2!1swWSNkhwDCCBuDQCZ-dBbLQ!2e0

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.3...3m4!1e1!3m2!1sXXX-0rORAUtTw5WWP-a9bQ!2e0

This is probably a long shot but if your in laws have their Aldi reciept from the day in question and send the reciept to parking eye via recorded post (Keep a copy of recipt too) and explain that they were held up in Aldi's shopping cue then Parking eye will waive the fine.

I say its a long shot as the in laws will probably not have their reciept from the day in question.

If they do not have their reciept then there is no other way out of this as Parking eye have now been granted some sort of new powers were we can no longer ignore their fines like once upon a time and get away with it.

They also listen to mitigation based on age or disability if they are relevant.

I don't think that Parking Eye have new powers, it was just that they used to make enough money without taking people to court as most paid up, however, word got round and less and less people were paying so Parking Eye started issuing summons in quantity to reverse the customer's attitude.

Dont Pay and you get threats and intimidation for about 12 weeks, the threats get wilder and bigger, if you can hold out they will go away, its a civil matter not enforceable by any laws.

Alternately pay the fine and then systematically steal or break goods and objects in the store to a greater value than the fine. Do this at every visit over a similair time period, this wont get your money back, but will give you a feeling of great satisfaction

Over a five year period you will have cost them thousands, they will rue the day they crossed you, its a matter of pride now and a part of your every day routine.

In the small hours- waiting for daybreak, you smile to yourself knowing that you won and will keep winning.

K

Kamikaze is obviously a person not to be crossed, I got a good laugh at his post his is a drastic way of dealing with the problem but I suppose revenge is sweet.

Go through the motions of their appeals process but you need the magic phrase of "the parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss".
They will try and say it is commercially justifiable as in Parking Eye v Beavis but this is currently waiting the court of appeal decision so is not to be relied upon. They are deliberately misleading people by not reporting this.
Demand a POPLA code and cost them money!.
Google Pepipoo Parking Eye. Warning though, it can become quite addictive fighting these scumbags.

Kamikazi sounds sick, very very sick lol. Does he knock on peoples doors in his boxers inviting the occupant out to exercise? (See other posts if you dont understand). His plan for revenge will back fire, you will be banned from the store before any substancial period of payback but you may get a kick out of it.....Go ahead, make your day lol

Parking Eye have no statutory authority to levy parking charges. As someone else said, it is a civil matter, like me charging you for standing on my doorstep. I got one of these demands three months ago. I ignored it and nothing further happened. You may get further threatening demands of legal action etc but it's all huff and bluff. You won't get taken to court. Even if they were to try it you could just say it wasn't you driving. They can't prove otherwise, so game over. Forget about it.

Everybody has a right to levy charges, do you mean they don't have a statutory authority to levy FINES?

County Court hearings where the Claimant was Parking Eye Ltd, Parking Eye, ParkingEye or any slight variations upon them between 01.04.2013 and 31.03.2014.

Number of Hearings 252
Judgement in favour of the Claimant 217
Claim Dismissed or Struck out 12
Other 23

Of particular note was case 3QT56025, Defendant ordered to pay £200 to ParkingEye Ltd. Defendant argued that ParkingEye's parking charge was disproportionate to the loss incurred. The Judge did not find this a persuasive argument. However a test case for this defence has been heard this year and the outcome is yet to be declared.

Also case 3QT22034, Defendant ordered to pay £350 to ParkingEye Ltd. Defendant argued that she had not seen the signage and therefore had never entered a contract with the Claimant and that the signage was not clear. The Judge ruled that the signage was adequately displayed and therefore found in ParkingEye's favour.

Charges, fines, call it what you like. There is no initial charge made for parking. Parking Eye’s ‘excess charge’ cases depend on whether you have breached an implicit (in their view) contract imposed by their sign limiting you to one and a half hours or whatever. It’s not criminal or common law, it’s a civil matter, as I said. The solution is very simple. PE bill the KEEPER of the vehicle as revealed by DVLA from the reg no supplied by their ANPR cameras. The DRIVER at the time is solely responsible for parking/motoring offences. The KEEPER is not responsible for the actions of the DRIVER at the time. PE’s case is against the DRIVER but as they have no staff on the ground they have no evidence who was driving – unless you give it to them. If hassled by them and feeling obliged to respond, all you have to do is explain, using the form they send you, that the vehicle was being driven by your cousin visiting from Nigeria (for instance). You can give them an address if you like. The onus is on PE to prove you were driving, or pursue the actual driver as revealed by you. Without evidence it was you (by you being dumb enough to reply to their letters implicitly admitting you were at the wheel) they have no case against you. Good luck to them finding your cousin in Nigeria. End of story. Obviously you do have a genuine cousin in Nigeria who was driving. You wouldn’t want to use underhand methods against such upstanding and honourable public servants like Parking Eye, would you?

PS I rather liked Kamikaze’s extreme solution, but I couldn’t possibly condone breaking the law…

The registered keeper is responsible for paying not the driver.
From Pepipoo

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=47038

That may be true for fines from councils etc, but in a private car park, the contract is between the car park and the person who parked the car ie the driver. It could be a bit more complicated if the owner was a passenger who instructed the driver to park in the private car park but I think the outcome would still go against the driver as he had ultimate control of the vehicle.

The driver is always responsible under POFA 2012 however if the keeper does not reveal who the driver was at the time then they can be held liable. That is law, however it is a civil matter.
Parking eye do take some cases to court but if you appeal then go through POPLA using the correct terminology it will be accepted.
I have had several (10 or so) done this way, several for posters on this site..
Get it killed off rather than have it drag on and hang over you.

You Must be logged in to see the images

** Please Note these Signs can change or be moved **
These are the signs seen today, At the Prenton Aldi, Home and Bargain Car Park.

Parking Eye is Running the Private Parking March 26th 2015
These are the Signs that are visible today.

Google Maps View. Approach to the car park.



As you Turn in to the Car park (Yes easy to see if your standing still).



Close up


In the car park I could only see 2 Signs on posts.
These i noticed are facing away from the Stores.



Outside Aldi's Entrance


Outside Home and Bargin


Close up of the Sign


Close up of the Terms : See Closer Click Me


The ANPR Camera's on the Sign post in the middle of the car park. (See above).
Strange how the Terms and Conditions on the Yellow Sign is a Sticker, that could come off.

Well done Mark for taking the time to get those pictures.
Adds extra points on the appeal. Entrance signage is inadequate.

Reminded me that i have actually defeated these shysters on behalf of my Aunt at this very location.

If the original poster wants to PM me i will happily advise directly but all the info is on pepipoo or parking prankster (who is humorous as well).

As much as I despise people being charged excessively for parking I can't agree that entrance signage is inadequate as they appear in the photos as pretty adequate to me. I know I may be missing the point but they can be seen.

Ive just added a new image to my post above. Ive included now Street View Approach to the car park.

If you enter the car park in street view you can see the old signs which were even worse at the entrance. Pre ANPR.

Highway Code signs have red triangles for warnings why do these car parks not include an eye catching red sign with £70 fine in big letters. A drivers brain reads warnings, blue signs are information.

You make a good point over signage colour. Our brains become trained to our environment. Legislation covers road sign design including colour and font size but it doesn't cover 'off road' or private signs. To cover themselves, most companies only need to erect a single advisory notice. It is open to abuse.

GeeMeister, Afraid you are wrong with regards to the private companies only needing to erect a single sign and about the design, colours and fonts.
There are strict conditions in the BPA code of practice with regards to all of the above and other criteria in respect of signage.
Having inadequate signage means that a contract has not been formed with the driver so conditions can not be enforced.
Plenty of case history of cases being dismissed due to inadequate signage.

Thanks for that Blueskier, I happily accept i'm wrong, its so easy to become out of date with such information.

There is a third sign on the building at the park end as well, so five signs with terms and conditions plus the entrance sign, I'd say in this case they have it pretty much covered.

I would have thought that ALDI would have wanted to attract customers rather than discourage them by employing car park control. We shop at Tesco Bidston and a few times have forgotten to buy an item. I have returned within four hours to buy it or them so as to finish the shopping. If they had this kind of control on their car park, I would certainly think about changing where I shopped.

I wonder if they got planning permission to erect those signs?

Does the small print pass muster for people with close vision problems?

Is the sticker just hiding the original text that had to be re-worded for legal reasons?

Just a thought.

Most non-illuminated signs below a certain size and height with text below a certain size etc etc are exempt from planning permission.

There is a minimum vision criteria for drivers additionally the signs probably meet the guidelines which are indirectly compulsory, Parking eye are daft, they know the rules.

Glad we agree on something.
Leaving the signage aside, lets explore the not a genuine pre-estimate of loss argument? Golden bullet at POPLA.
In a civil case the LANDOWNER can claim damages for any loss suffered in cases of trespass or or breach of contract (as is suggested here) flowing directly from the breach.
For an idea of how PE operate look here. http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/government-announces-clamp-down-on.html#comment-form
What are the genuine loss for overstaying in a free car park? Usually £100 according to PE. Really?

Loss is assessed for things outside contract, if you have a contract with an agreed price then loss (or amount of profit) doesn't come into it.

You cannot agree a price with someone then renegue on it after the service/item has been provided, that is theft.

Really?
Google Dunlop v New Tyre Co.
I dont mean to be condescending but your approach on this matter would lead me to believe you may well have a vested interest in such matters.
You seem to quote the same arguments as the PCC's.

Anyway the OP seems to have gone quiet here so i will now dip out as it is turning into a tit for tat troll fest.
My advice to the OP.
Go on Pepipoo, do your research, follow the advice and get it killed off or dont pay and have it hanging over you for 6 years or pay up and never shop there again.

Sorry. One additional thing r.e. terms of a contract. There is the CPUTR legislation which orevents unfair or excessive penalties in a contract. UK law not hearsay.

Opinions and information strengthen and keep us involved.

The other person may have gone but many people do benefit by all the information posted.

I've certainly learned something from this post, thanks.

There are a number of counters to using Dunlop case.

In the Dunlop case there was an agreement that the tyres would not be sold below a certain price, if they were sold below, it would be in breach of the contract, the contract additionally added the "penalty" clause should that matter be breached as the seller had no control once the tyres had been passed on). In the car parks case, there is no agreement to stay only for a specified time, the amount you pay depends on how long you choose to stay so their is no breach of contract.

With the car park being "free", what is the normal price? is it free or is it the charge? Depends which way you see it discounted. Obviously there is no such thing as free, therefore the free element has to be seen as the discounted part and the charged part being the normal price.

The car park "penalty" charges have already been through the courts and meet the industry guidelines, therefore they are not classed as penal.

In more recent times than the Dunlop case (which is over 100 years old), the courts default to upholding the contractual terms and in only the most exceptional cases to they identify it as a penalty clause. eg Alfred McAlpine Capital Projects Limited v Tilebox Limited (2001), Philips v The Attorney General of Hong Kong(1993).

I really can't understand why numerous people refuse to understand that they do not have the right to free off-road parking. Car parks are often valuable land, if the owner uses it as a car park he has the right to charge, the same as he is allowed to charge if it converted it into an amusement arcade.

I imagine the greater majority of people on this thread have a vested interest in this matter, so what is your point?

If anyone has found a shop car park that has been abused - a few classics near railway stations, they would realise that these charges are actually in the interest of the customers to enable them to have parking available instead of being constantly full of commuter's parking.

Mark and Geemeister, fair comment but i dont think myself and DD are going to come to an agreement over this. DD obviously agrees with Parking Eye that a "penalty" of £100 is acceptable for an overstay in a free (for 1.5 hours) car park.
Boom DD, penalty charge? surely you mean parking charge? as a private company can not issue penalties. Says so in CPUTR.
"Meet industry guidelines"? The industry that polices itself with a body that the parking companies finance themselves. How independent?
You seem to suggest Parking Eye claim it is a contractual charge? Is this the case? So VAT is applicable then and a VAT invoice produced when a PCN is paid? Genuine question.

It doesn't matter what service is being sold, if you agree to pay an amount, then that is what has to be paid.

Parking eye and VAT has been news for at least 4 years, I'm sure HMRC have looked into it, though it beats me.

I think you misunderstand my stance, I am against anyone getting hit with charges like this, but I'm also against car parks being full because people are taking up slots when they shouldn't be parked there at all. I can't think of another business model that works better than the Private Eye one.

Its good that Aldi(etc) provide free parking for their customers, its bad of the public to use the Aldi car parks when they are doing business elsewhere, the law has to allow Aldi to have control over their own property in a way that prevents abuse of their car parks.

It is completely immoral to dump your vehicle on Aldi's property while you pop over to get your glasses, it is just the same as dumping your car on someone's house drive while you go shopping.

I agree people abusing car parks is totally wrong and they do deserve to have a deterrent. Again it is private land and they surely hold the right to control who has access and for how long etc.
I would be most upset if someone abused my land.
I do however feel a realistic charge would deter without penalising genuine errors, i.e. slight overstays, parking slightly outside the marked bays. Parking eye can only make profit from people breaching the terms which i believe means they will not be reasonable and they certainly dont accept mitigation, for instance the guy who fell on Snowdon and was taken to hospital but was still hit with a PCN.
Finally to say that you can not think of another business model that works better than the PE one.The landowner does not receive any money to compensate for these breaches.
Wow, alienate your genuine customers. Good business model for PE who were bought out by Capita for £57.5 million.

Parking Eye lease the management of the car parks off the landowner (£1000 a week is quoted for some), so the the landowner does profit (indirectly) from the charges.

It does highlight how many people are abusing the car parks and that there is an endemic problem.

In my experience the Snowden case is quite unusual because PE normally back down from any genuine provable mitigation, but I guess the Snowden case not being for a supermarket might make a difference, I think the supermarkets have a "no bad publicity" clause and certainly have an influence over PE.

The next technology will be tracking people after they leave the car to see if they left the property and/or used the relevant store.

I'm sure Argos have people-tracking technology in store, I did a stock check at a catalogue-point then went to a pay-point and it asked me if I wanted to order the item - somehow I was tracked from catalogue-point to the pay-point.

joking aren't you

i parked in a ParkingEye controlled car park in Wigan a couple of years ago like every other member of staff did
we all got ticketed, i refused to pay the fine

4 months later i recieved a letter from Northampton Court.. £150 CCJ imposed

And for all the doubters ....

The Supreme Court has upheld an £85 charge for overstaying a free car park.

SOURCE

Source won't let you read the article unless you pay.

Unfortunately you have to subscribe to read that link.
Hopefully find a free link soon. Not showing up yet

I read it free on FT first, but I did mean to post this other link instead .... SOURCE

I now, make a point of not assuming the last car park operates like the one before regardless of who runs the dam thing.
You need a survival guide nowadays along with a highway code.

Here's a BBC link:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-34721126

I've also noticed that the car park further down the road on the corner of Holm Lane belonging to The Swan has now become pay & display.

It was always full of cars not using the pub.

approx. 10 years ago the Swan Car Park had a pay and display machine, it was to the right of the entrance to the car park. after a number of years the machine broke and was not repaired then approx. 5 to 6 years ago one morning there was a movable barrier across the entrance with a security attendant manning it. This continued for about a week. Yes the build up of cars been left there all day long has grown and as you say this week a new pay and display machine has been installed to the left of the entrance as you drive in.

Does it really belong to the Swan Hotel?

when I used the car park during the time the earlier pay and display machine was working you passed a portion of the ticket from the machine over the bar and got the cost of your meal or drink reduce by the amount on the ticket. Many many years ago the piece of land which is the car park had a building on it which was a brewery. Perhaps that answers your question as to ownership of the car park.

I suspect that about a third of the carpark may belong to the pub but roughly the 2/3rds on the Woodchurch Road side may not.

I can't find records of a building being present on any of that that land, unless it was exceedingly short-lived.

I'll try and look into it further but perhaps Pinz or Derek could shed more light?

The present car park opposite the Swan Hotel shows on a 1939 abstract of conveyance as having a large building on it. It was a Bents Brewery and the building covered not only the current car park but also stretched along Home Lane as far as the bend in the lane where it starts to climb up to Talbot Road.

Interesting, there is absolutely nothing on the OS maps, amongst the many others I checked was the 1938 and 1953 revisions.

When kids, we used to play all around that area. It was all open. Not cultivated at all, just rough grassland. After passing Bethany - Holmlands Drive sits on top of the original Bethany now, there were no buildings at all until you came to Holm Lane with the Swan Hotel. That corner was just open land, but later a small area was given a rough surface of gravel or clinker and became a small car park for the Swan. As to whether or not Bents Brewery, owner the Swan just used it or bought it from who ever owned it I don't know. I'm talking of the late 50's early 60's here. The halcyon days of the Flat Lanes, loads of ponds, the brickworks excavations - all great places to play.

The Swan Hotel was were I imbibed in my first legal pint. Bents Bitter. NOT the best beer in the world !!

As an aside, a while ago I emailed the present Bethany Chapel in Holmlands Drive asking if they had any picture of the original building. I never had the courtesy of a reply or acknowledgement !! PEASANTS !!!!

http://maps.cheshire.gov.uk/tithemaps/TwinMaps.aspx
Can't find any building there on maps I've looked at.
Any date for brewery being there

After reading the pages of conveyance documents that I have. The documents reference the whole parcel of land stretching from Holme Lane down as far as the railway line. The section of land from the corner of the junction of Holme Lane and Woodchurch road back to the bend in Holme Lane is actualy outlined as belonging to Bents Brewery but no mention of it been built on. So perhaps that's why none of the os maps show any buildings on the land.

A loophole has appeared. Parkingeye/ALDI appear to have never attained planning permission for their ANPR and signage at Aldi Prenton. It is possible to ask for your money to be refunded on the grounds that the equipment used was illegal.

Furthermore, it would be difficult to understand how they are in conformance with the data protection act if as a business they had illegally placed cameras.

Thanks to WirralLeaks.