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.