Boycott car park calls

CONFUSED: Rita Rabbitt with her £100 parking fine

CONFUSED: Rita Rabbitt with her £100 parking fine

First published in News
Last updated
by

A BOROUGH council transport spokesman has called for a boycott of a town centre car park after more than 700 complaints.

Cllr Christine James, briefholder for transport and infrastructure, has urged people to avoid the privately-owned Weymouth Old Town car park, behind Brewers Quay.

It follows the latest complaint, from a 78-year-old Weymouth woman who was fined £100 after spending 17 minutes in the car park trying to get the ticket machine to operate.

The car park is managed by Parking Eye Management and uses CCTV cameras to record number plates of the cars Cllr James criticised the company for using “bully boy” tactics when it fines people, and said since it opened in April 2011, the council had received more than 700 complaints.

Cllr James said: “Any charges imposed on motorists are supposed to be relevant to what has happened, and this isn’t.

“Since this car park opened in 2011, we have had more than 700 complaints about it, and it reflects badly on Weymouth.

“We have asked the company if we can run it on its behalf, and it refused.

“All I can advise is for people to not use the car park. We have tried to have meetings with the company but we haven’t. I personally think what they are doing is quite despicable.”

Rita Rabbitt drove into town with her 85-year-old husband Jim to attend the Seafood Festival on July 12, when she tried to use the car park.

Mrs Rabbitt said the machine was confusing and when she went to purchase a ticket she inadvertently put the wrong registration plate number in.

She said: “When I got the ticket and started walking back to the car, it looked like I had put the wrong letter in for my registration plate so I thought I’d leave the car park as I was worried I’d get fined.

“The machine was so confusing I had to wait for a member of the public to show me how to use it to get a refund.

“I was only in the car park for 17 minutes. It’s a big car park. I was a long way from the machine but I left as soon as I could because I didn’t want to get fined.”

Nearly a month later on August 5, she received a letter from Parking Eye Management telling her she was fined £100 but if she paid in 10 days she would only have to pay £60.

Mrs Rabbitt appealed the charge over the phone and by letter, with both rejected. She has now paid the £60.

She has warned other members of the public, and described the company’s tactics as “frightening” and “threatening.”

She added: “I was staggered when I received the letter - I thought it was very threatening.

The way they worded it and the fact if you don’t pay within 10 days the fine is £100 is quite frightening.

“It’s quite a horrible experience to go through. I think other members of the public should be aware of it. A lot of people my age are not computer literate and may not be very observant so they should know about this.”

A spokesman for Parking Eye said: “Car park users enter into a contract – as per the signage on site – to pay the appropriate amount for the duration of their visit or to not exceed free parking limits.

“A parking charge becomes payable if the terms and conditions are not adhered to. A reasonable grace period is always offered that is sufficient for normal usage of the car park in question.

“We operate an audited appeals process and encourage people to appeal if they feel there are mitigating circumstances.”

Comments (59)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:00am Thu 28 Aug 14

cj07589 says...

Nasty bully boy tactics if I was a retailer with vested interests in the operation of the car park I would be very concerned about this. It certainly won't encourage return shopping trips will it?
Nasty bully boy tactics if I was a retailer with vested interests in the operation of the car park I would be very concerned about this. It certainly won't encourage return shopping trips will it? cj07589
  • Score: 63

7:12am Thu 28 Aug 14

unexpected error says...

Don't pay the fine, it's a private car park so they would have to take you to court to recover the money. More often than not it isn't worth their effort.
Don't pay the fine, it's a private car park so they would have to take you to court to recover the money. More often than not it isn't worth their effort. unexpected error
  • Score: 90

7:24am Thu 28 Aug 14

arlbergbahn says...

Perhaps this nasty lot deserve to be Redeveloped.
Perhaps this nasty lot deserve to be Redeveloped. arlbergbahn
  • Score: 40

7:41am Thu 28 Aug 14

MrTomSmith says...

I find myself strongly agreeing with Christine James or strongly disagreeing which is annoying. She is obviously correct here. What I do find wrong though is the lack of power of the council or anybody to stop this.

Another problem is, this is the car park that is coming in the planning permission application by Brewers Quay.

If the car park has been such a pain in the whatsit to the council then really it is a forgone conclusion as to which way they will vote (maybe not that clear cut but surely it will make a big difference) and isn't the Car Park owned by the developers anyway?

Sounds like they are sitting in the box seat at the moment, if that is correct. Gives you a good impression of who you are dealing with though doesn't it? They failed with the first attempt of developing Brewers Quay after kicking everyone out, now want to do it again, but in the meantime happy to sting us in the car park, nice people.
I find myself strongly agreeing with Christine James or strongly disagreeing which is annoying. She is obviously correct here. What I do find wrong though is the lack of power of the council or anybody to stop this. Another problem is, this is the car park that is coming in the planning permission application by Brewers Quay. If the car park has been such a pain in the whatsit to the council then really it is a forgone conclusion as to which way they will vote (maybe not that clear cut but surely it will make a big difference) and isn't the Car Park owned by the developers anyway? Sounds like they are sitting in the box seat at the moment, if that is correct. Gives you a good impression of who you are dealing with though doesn't it? They failed with the first attempt of developing Brewers Quay after kicking everyone out, now want to do it again, but in the meantime happy to sting us in the car park, nice people. MrTomSmith
  • Score: 25

7:42am Thu 28 Aug 14

Cookie720 says...

A shame she paid it, they are bully's & nothing short of robbing gits! I was fined for pulling in there for 10 mins last winter to sort out my 3yr old daughter that had been sick. The car park was empty at the time also I was unaware that it was a private car park (the signage is rubbish). I used there appeal service which was promptly rejected being told to pay up or else! So I then wrote back again explaining that as a private company they can only invoice me not fine me, and as it's an invoice it is a legal requirement that it is for a sum that is reasonable and justifiable (£10/min isn't) amongst other things and I looked forward to letting a judge decide. After another threatening letter (that i ignored) that was the end of the matter.
A shame she paid it, they are bully's & nothing short of robbing gits! I was fined for pulling in there for 10 mins last winter to sort out my 3yr old daughter that had been sick. The car park was empty at the time also I was unaware that it was a private car park (the signage is rubbish). I used there appeal service which was promptly rejected being told to pay up or else! So I then wrote back again explaining that as a private company they can only invoice me not fine me, and as it's an invoice it is a legal requirement that it is for a sum that is reasonable and justifiable (£10/min isn't) amongst other things and I looked forward to letting a judge decide. After another threatening letter (that i ignored) that was the end of the matter. Cookie720
  • Score: 86

8:25am Thu 28 Aug 14

Dkny1982 says...

I thought they were trying to redevelop the newtons road car park.
I thought they were trying to redevelop the newtons road car park. Dkny1982
  • Score: 9

8:59am Thu 28 Aug 14

K9 says...

Don't they need a licence to operate that site? Or can anyone who owns some land start a car park?
Don't they need a licence to operate that site? Or can anyone who owns some land start a car park? K9
  • Score: 16

9:06am Thu 28 Aug 14

Bully669 says...

Ah nice to see Mrs James standing up for motorists.

Shame this radical shift has only just come about after her overseeing the Olympic farce. When is she up for re-election?

Get rid of the stupid lights Mrs James and you will go up in people's estimation.
Ah nice to see Mrs James standing up for motorists. Shame this radical shift has only just come about after her overseeing the Olympic farce. When is she up for re-election? Get rid of the stupid lights Mrs James and you will go up in people's estimation. Bully669
  • Score: -4

9:37am Thu 28 Aug 14

Caption Sensible says...

Never pay the fine, it is a Parking Notice that's all.
Never pay the fine, it is a Parking Notice that's all. Caption Sensible
  • Score: 39

9:59am Thu 28 Aug 14

Bollard says...

My wife got one of these for accidentally staying too long in Asda car park. The current advice is NOT to ignore these letters, but appeal against them with a carefully worded letter. My wife's parking charge was cancelled. Money Saving Expert website has the templates required.
My wife got one of these for accidentally staying too long in Asda car park. The current advice is NOT to ignore these letters, but appeal against them with a carefully worded letter. My wife's parking charge was cancelled. Money Saving Expert website has the templates required. Bollard
  • Score: 52

10:43am Thu 28 Aug 14

elloello1980 says...

I would love to see the council play some dirty tactics on this company that's damaging our town (taking money away). I'm sure there are some mischievous ideas we could suggest that would fall in line with the law and legislation...

I would suggest a huge sign outside the car park (on public land) that warns people of the problems and suggests other suitable car parks.
I would love to see the council play some dirty tactics on this company that's damaging our town (taking money away). I'm sure there are some mischievous ideas we could suggest that would fall in line with the law and legislation... I would suggest a huge sign outside the car park (on public land) that warns people of the problems and suggests other suitable car parks. elloello1980
  • Score: 38

11:47am Thu 28 Aug 14

Stranger says...

These companies get the details of the vehicles registered keeper from the DVLA. However, the driver of the vehicle enters into a contract with the parking company when they park there not the keeper. Unlike the road traffic act, as the keeper you are under no legal obligation to tell them who was driving the vehicle on the day it entered into the "contract" and as they cannot prove who it was there is no case to answer. No court will ever uphold an enforcement.

Sorry parking eye... I simply cannot remember who was driving the car last month ;)
These companies get the details of the vehicles registered keeper from the DVLA. However, the driver of the vehicle enters into a contract with the parking company when they park there not the keeper. Unlike the road traffic act, as the keeper you are under no legal obligation to tell them who was driving the vehicle on the day it entered into the "contract" and as they cannot prove who it was there is no case to answer. No court will ever uphold an enforcement. Sorry parking eye... I simply cannot remember who was driving the car last month ;) Stranger
  • Score: 34

12:01pm Thu 28 Aug 14

shy talk says...

The DVLA, which charges £2.50 a time for parking companies to access its database of drivers, will have collected £3.6 million in fees from the parking companies. Nice earner for them to.
The DVLA, which charges £2.50 a time for parking companies to access its database of drivers, will have collected £3.6 million in fees from the parking companies. Nice earner for them to. shy talk
  • Score: 16

12:02pm Thu 28 Aug 14

JamesYoung says...

If you get hit with one of these, visit pepipoo.com. You can get lots of free advice on the forums.
These people are like the clampers of old. Cowboys.
If you get hit with one of these, visit pepipoo.com. You can get lots of free advice on the forums. These people are like the clampers of old. Cowboys. JamesYoung
  • Score: 27

12:03pm Thu 28 Aug 14

JamesYoung says...

Stranger wrote:
These companies get the details of the vehicles registered keeper from the DVLA. However, the driver of the vehicle enters into a contract with the parking company when they park there not the keeper. Unlike the road traffic act, as the keeper you are under no legal obligation to tell them who was driving the vehicle on the day it entered into the "contract" and as they cannot prove who it was there is no case to answer. No court will ever uphold an enforcement.

Sorry parking eye... I simply cannot remember who was driving the car last month ;)
This approach is no longer valid - but there are plenty of other arguments to deploy.
[quote][p][bold]Stranger[/bold] wrote: These companies get the details of the vehicles registered keeper from the DVLA. However, the driver of the vehicle enters into a contract with the parking company when they park there not the keeper. Unlike the road traffic act, as the keeper you are under no legal obligation to tell them who was driving the vehicle on the day it entered into the "contract" and as they cannot prove who it was there is no case to answer. No court will ever uphold an enforcement. Sorry parking eye... I simply cannot remember who was driving the car last month ;)[/p][/quote]This approach is no longer valid - but there are plenty of other arguments to deploy. JamesYoung
  • Score: 13

12:10pm Thu 28 Aug 14

Stranger says...

JamesYoung wrote:
Stranger wrote:
These companies get the details of the vehicles registered keeper from the DVLA. However, the driver of the vehicle enters into a contract with the parking company when they park there not the keeper. Unlike the road traffic act, as the keeper you are under no legal obligation to tell them who was driving the vehicle on the day it entered into the "contract" and as they cannot prove who it was there is no case to answer. No court will ever uphold an enforcement.

Sorry parking eye... I simply cannot remember who was driving the car last month ;)
This approach is no longer valid - but there are plenty of other arguments to deploy.
You do not have to give then driver details and the contract is with the driver. I can assure you this is still valid and in use at this present time
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stranger[/bold] wrote: These companies get the details of the vehicles registered keeper from the DVLA. However, the driver of the vehicle enters into a contract with the parking company when they park there not the keeper. Unlike the road traffic act, as the keeper you are under no legal obligation to tell them who was driving the vehicle on the day it entered into the "contract" and as they cannot prove who it was there is no case to answer. No court will ever uphold an enforcement. Sorry parking eye... I simply cannot remember who was driving the car last month ;)[/p][/quote]This approach is no longer valid - but there are plenty of other arguments to deploy.[/p][/quote]You do not have to give then driver details and the contract is with the driver. I can assure you this is still valid and in use at this present time Stranger
  • Score: 0

12:10pm Thu 28 Aug 14

JonnyT says...

You all need to read this.

http://forums.moneys
avingexpert.com/show
thread.php?t=2294335
You all need to read this. http://forums.moneys avingexpert.com/show thread.php?t=2294335 JonnyT
  • Score: -1

12:17pm Thu 28 Aug 14

February1948 says...

unexpected error wrote:
Don't pay the fine, it's a private car park so they would have to take you to court to recover the money. More often than not it isn't worth their effort.
Yes, happened to me once in a similar situation and they backed down in the end. Don't whatever you do, give in to these people.
[quote][p][bold]unexpected error[/bold] wrote: Don't pay the fine, it's a private car park so they would have to take you to court to recover the money. More often than not it isn't worth their effort.[/p][/quote]Yes, happened to me once in a similar situation and they backed down in the end. Don't whatever you do, give in to these people. February1948
  • Score: 15

12:18pm Thu 28 Aug 14

mark1a says...

Stranger wrote:
JamesYoung wrote:
Stranger wrote:
These companies get the details of the vehicles registered keeper from the DVLA. However, the driver of the vehicle enters into a contract with the parking company when they park there not the keeper. Unlike the road traffic act, as the keeper you are under no legal obligation to tell them who was driving the vehicle on the day it entered into the "contract" and as they cannot prove who it was there is no case to answer. No court will ever uphold an enforcement.

Sorry parking eye... I simply cannot remember who was driving the car last month ;)
This approach is no longer valid - but there are plenty of other arguments to deploy.
You do not have to give then driver details and the contract is with the driver. I can assure you this is still valid and in use at this present time
Stranger, you are wrong and your information is out of date. JamesYoung is right. Since 01/10/12, the Protection of Freedoms Act, while outlawing clamping on private land, also made provision for car park operators to pursue the registered keeper rather then the driver for charges:

https://www.gov.uk/g
overnment/news/great
er-rights-for-motori
sts
[quote][p][bold]Stranger[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stranger[/bold] wrote: These companies get the details of the vehicles registered keeper from the DVLA. However, the driver of the vehicle enters into a contract with the parking company when they park there not the keeper. Unlike the road traffic act, as the keeper you are under no legal obligation to tell them who was driving the vehicle on the day it entered into the "contract" and as they cannot prove who it was there is no case to answer. No court will ever uphold an enforcement. Sorry parking eye... I simply cannot remember who was driving the car last month ;)[/p][/quote]This approach is no longer valid - but there are plenty of other arguments to deploy.[/p][/quote]You do not have to give then driver details and the contract is with the driver. I can assure you this is still valid and in use at this present time[/p][/quote]Stranger, you are wrong and your information is out of date. JamesYoung is right. Since 01/10/12, the Protection of Freedoms Act, while outlawing clamping on private land, also made provision for car park operators to pursue the registered keeper rather then the driver for charges: https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/news/great er-rights-for-motori sts mark1a
  • Score: 14

12:51pm Thu 28 Aug 14

hoopeybird says...

February1948 wrote:
unexpected error wrote:
Don't pay the fine, it's a private car park so they would have to take you to court to recover the money. More often than not it isn't worth their effort.
Yes, happened to me once in a similar situation and they backed down in the end. Don't whatever you do, give in to these people.
I agree. Dont give in to these people.
I had a similar thing happened to me and I totally ignored each"threat"and eventually the "fine"got up to over £200.I still ignored it and they dropped it.
They have to prove you were the driver and that you have commited an offence.

If you correspond with them you are admitting that you were driving the car-ignore them ,they would have to prove in a court that you were driving and they cant.
[quote][p][bold]February1948[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]unexpected error[/bold] wrote: Don't pay the fine, it's a private car park so they would have to take you to court to recover the money. More often than not it isn't worth their effort.[/p][/quote]Yes, happened to me once in a similar situation and they backed down in the end. Don't whatever you do, give in to these people.[/p][/quote]I agree. Dont give in to these people. I had a similar thing happened to me and I totally ignored each"threat"and eventually the "fine"got up to over £200.I still ignored it and they dropped it. They have to prove you were the driver and that you have commited an offence. If you correspond with them you are admitting that you were driving the car-ignore them ,they would have to prove in a court that you were driving and they cant. hoopeybird
  • Score: 8

12:54pm Thu 28 Aug 14

JamesYoung says...

hoopeybird wrote:
February1948 wrote:
unexpected error wrote:
Don't pay the fine, it's a private car park so they would have to take you to court to recover the money. More often than not it isn't worth their effort.
Yes, happened to me once in a similar situation and they backed down in the end. Don't whatever you do, give in to these people.
I agree. Dont give in to these people.
I had a similar thing happened to me and I totally ignored each"threat"and eventually the "fine"got up to over £200.I still ignored it and they dropped it.
They have to prove you were the driver and that you have commited an offence.

If you correspond with them you are admitting that you were driving the car-ignore them ,they would have to prove in a court that you were driving and they cant.
No!!! This is incorrect. Up until 2012 all you needed to do was ignore the letters, which get increasingly more threatening, because unless PE could identify the driver, you were off the hook. That has now changed.
Also, you have not committed an offence. This is contract law not criminal law.
As i say there are many defences, but Parking Eye are the most litiguous of the parking companies and they do take a small number of people to court. Most people then fold, others turn up unprepared. You need to base arguments on current case law and not on something that applied two years ago but has since changed.
Unless you know the law, then you can do a lot worse than paying £16 to these people. They will take care of the process. It's better than paying £100 to these scoundrels.
http://www.parkingti
cketappeals.org.uk/h
ow-it-works/
[quote][p][bold]hoopeybird[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]February1948[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]unexpected error[/bold] wrote: Don't pay the fine, it's a private car park so they would have to take you to court to recover the money. More often than not it isn't worth their effort.[/p][/quote]Yes, happened to me once in a similar situation and they backed down in the end. Don't whatever you do, give in to these people.[/p][/quote]I agree. Dont give in to these people. I had a similar thing happened to me and I totally ignored each"threat"and eventually the "fine"got up to over £200.I still ignored it and they dropped it. They have to prove you were the driver and that you have commited an offence. If you correspond with them you are admitting that you were driving the car-ignore them ,they would have to prove in a court that you were driving and they cant.[/p][/quote]No!!! This is incorrect. Up until 2012 all you needed to do was ignore the letters, which get increasingly more threatening, because unless PE could identify the driver, you were off the hook. That has now changed. Also, you have not committed an offence. This is contract law not criminal law. As i say there are many defences, but Parking Eye are the most litiguous of the parking companies and they do take a small number of people to court. Most people then fold, others turn up unprepared. You need to base arguments on current case law and not on something that applied two years ago but has since changed. Unless you know the law, then you can do a lot worse than paying £16 to these people. They will take care of the process. It's better than paying £100 to these scoundrels. http://www.parkingti cketappeals.org.uk/h ow-it-works/ JamesYoung
  • Score: 18

12:56pm Thu 28 Aug 14

isitonlyme says...

I also got a ticket from this company. I used the car park at night, there was no lighting working over the pay machine and you couldn't read what it was asking you to do and kept rejecting my coins. I appealed as per their letter and was told that if I could prove the lighting wasn't working and the machine not operating they would reconsider. As the only other occupants in the car were family members they refused my appeal. I certainly will never consider using this car park again. Perhaps a way of boycotting it, as it is private land, is to dump something very large at the entrance (ensuring it is not on any part of public land) so that nobody can enter. They will then have to pay to have the obstruction removed.
I also got a ticket from this company. I used the car park at night, there was no lighting working over the pay machine and you couldn't read what it was asking you to do and kept rejecting my coins. I appealed as per their letter and was told that if I could prove the lighting wasn't working and the machine not operating they would reconsider. As the only other occupants in the car were family members they refused my appeal. I certainly will never consider using this car park again. Perhaps a way of boycotting it, as it is private land, is to dump something very large at the entrance (ensuring it is not on any part of public land) so that nobody can enter. They will then have to pay to have the obstruction removed. isitonlyme
  • Score: 13

12:59pm Thu 28 Aug 14

isitonlyme says...

I too used this car park and had a fine. I parked one evening, it was very dark and there were no lights in the car park so I couldn't read the instructions on the machine. I tried putting money in but it kept rejecting the coins. I tried appealing through their appeal process and was told that if I could prove the machine and lighting weren't working they would reconsider. When I tried to re-appeal but provided information of other occupants in the vehicle (we were the only car in the car park) who were all family members they refused my appeal, so I paid. Perhaps one way of boycotting the car park would be to dump some very large material at the entrance, on the private part of the land (covering up registration plates), so that no-one can enter the car park. I assume (I'm no expert) that as it is private land they would have to pay to get rid of the material.
I too used this car park and had a fine. I parked one evening, it was very dark and there were no lights in the car park so I couldn't read the instructions on the machine. I tried putting money in but it kept rejecting the coins. I tried appealing through their appeal process and was told that if I could prove the machine and lighting weren't working they would reconsider. When I tried to re-appeal but provided information of other occupants in the vehicle (we were the only car in the car park) who were all family members they refused my appeal, so I paid. Perhaps one way of boycotting the car park would be to dump some very large material at the entrance, on the private part of the land (covering up registration plates), so that no-one can enter the car park. I assume (I'm no expert) that as it is private land they would have to pay to get rid of the material. isitonlyme
  • Score: 3

1:00pm Thu 28 Aug 14

Rod Well says...

ParkingEye have taken people to court and won (see their website). However, the overwhelming probability is that they will only send you a few official sounding computer-generated letters and then give up. Having received a number of these misleading documents I can understand how e.g. elderly people would find them threatening.

As @mark1a says, there is a lot of information online which is now wrong because it pre-dates the Protection of Freedoms Act. Responsibility now reverts to the registered keeper if the driver isn't identified within a set time. Also, case law has it that you are deemed to have entered a contract if there is clear signage in the car park.
ParkingEye have taken people to court and won (see their website). However, the overwhelming probability is that they will only send you a few official sounding computer-generated letters and then give up. Having received a number of these misleading documents I can understand how e.g. elderly people would find them threatening. As @mark1a says, there is a lot of information online which is now wrong because it pre-dates the Protection of Freedoms Act. Responsibility now reverts to the registered keeper if the driver isn't identified within a set time. Also, case law has it that you are deemed to have entered a contract if there is clear signage in the car park. Rod Well
  • Score: 4

1:12pm Thu 28 Aug 14

Rod Well says...

BTW - pop some aluminium foil over your number plates before entering or leaving the carpark. This puts your car into "stealth" mode which enables unlimited free parking.
BTW - pop some aluminium foil over your number plates before entering or leaving the carpark. This puts your car into "stealth" mode which enables unlimited free parking. Rod Well
  • Score: 29

1:20pm Thu 28 Aug 14

JamesYoung says...

isitonlyme wrote:
I too used this car park and had a fine. I parked one evening, it was very dark and there were no lights in the car park so I couldn't read the instructions on the machine. I tried putting money in but it kept rejecting the coins. I tried appealing through their appeal process and was told that if I could prove the machine and lighting weren't working they would reconsider. When I tried to re-appeal but provided information of other occupants in the vehicle (we were the only car in the car park) who were all family members they refused my appeal, so I paid. Perhaps one way of boycotting the car park would be to dump some very large material at the entrance, on the private part of the land (covering up registration plates), so that no-one can enter the car park. I assume (I'm no expert) that as it is private land they would have to pay to get rid of the material.
What you need to understand about their appeals process is that they aim to reject every appeal that they receive. They make their money from the "fines", and have actually (bizarrely) told a district judge that without the "fines", their industry would collapse.
Sadly, if you had followed the process through, you would almost certainly have got away without paying.
There are many, many grounds for a defence, but here's a key one. In the UK, only the government has the right to issue fines or penalties. You'll notice that these words are not used on Parking Eyes letters,even though they are made to look like "real" council fines. You'll also (unless they have changed) notice words to the effect of "by paying this invoice you accept respinsibility" at the bottom of the letter - which is what alerted me to the fact that something is not right.
So without statutory authority to issue fines, they rely on contract law. They contend that by parking in the car park, you've accepted the terms (generally printed in very small print on a sign somewhere) and that a contract has been formed. So many people try to argue that they didn't see the sign and that thus there was no contract. The flaw with this is that it focuses the judge's attention on signage. However, it does not matter if the signage is visible or not if the contract itself is not valid.
Under English law, we don't allow made-up numbers to be charged as damages for breach of contract. You need to have a "genuine pre-estimate of loss". This means, for example, that Parking Eye have to demonstrate that the £100 is a genuine estimate of what it has cost their business - not just the sum lost from parking, but also some of the admin costs. So this is one area to challenge. For example, if you paid for one hour's parking in an empty car park and overstayed by 7 mintues (as happened to me) then it is hard to argue that a loss was suffered from the car park. OK, so they then need to pay £2.50 to get your details from the DVLA, and maybe they incur a couple of hours of admin time in printing and sending a letter. But that doesn't add up to £100. Normally, they offer to halve the amount if you pay in 14 days. Why is that? If it was a genuine pre-estimate of loss arising from the breach of contract itself, then the loss should be the same at 7 days as it is at 14 days. So that's one area of contest.
Another is an area that you have unwittingly picked up on yourself: who owns the land, who benefits from the parking fees and who benefits from the "penalty" charges. This is another key issue, since there is a convincing argument that the companies have no right to levy these charges in their agreement with the landlords and according to the law of the land.
There are probably 20-30 points in a well worded defence. Submit all of this at the beginnig and you have a better than evens chance of PE giving up. I also offered to pay the additional hour's parking charge and £10 towards their administration fee, which they declined. This would have helped had it gone to court (ie, they turned down an offer that actually would have turned them a profit given that their process and letter issuance is done by computer in seconds).
However, the best advice is to either use the pepipoo forums or to use the service i referred to earlier. I had some background in contract law so i was able to construct a defence which evidently convinced them to back off, since it never went to court.
They are nasty bullies and the more that this is communicated the better.
[quote][p][bold]isitonlyme[/bold] wrote: I too used this car park and had a fine. I parked one evening, it was very dark and there were no lights in the car park so I couldn't read the instructions on the machine. I tried putting money in but it kept rejecting the coins. I tried appealing through their appeal process and was told that if I could prove the machine and lighting weren't working they would reconsider. When I tried to re-appeal but provided information of other occupants in the vehicle (we were the only car in the car park) who were all family members they refused my appeal, so I paid. Perhaps one way of boycotting the car park would be to dump some very large material at the entrance, on the private part of the land (covering up registration plates), so that no-one can enter the car park. I assume (I'm no expert) that as it is private land they would have to pay to get rid of the material.[/p][/quote]What you need to understand about their appeals process is that they aim to reject every appeal that they receive. They make their money from the "fines", and have actually (bizarrely) told a district judge that without the "fines", their industry would collapse. Sadly, if you had followed the process through, you would almost certainly have got away without paying. There are many, many grounds for a defence, but here's a key one. In the UK, only the government has the right to issue fines or penalties. You'll notice that these words are not used on Parking Eyes letters,even though they are made to look like "real" council fines. You'll also (unless they have changed) notice words to the effect of "by paying this invoice you accept respinsibility" at the bottom of the letter - which is what alerted me to the fact that something is not right. So without statutory authority to issue fines, they rely on contract law. They contend that by parking in the car park, you've accepted the terms (generally printed in very small print on a sign somewhere) and that a contract has been formed. So many people try to argue that they didn't see the sign and that thus there was no contract. The flaw with this is that it focuses the judge's attention on signage. However, it does not matter if the signage is visible or not if the contract itself is not valid. Under English law, we don't allow made-up numbers to be charged as damages for breach of contract. You need to have a "genuine pre-estimate of loss". This means, for example, that Parking Eye have to demonstrate that the £100 is a genuine estimate of what it has cost their business - not just the sum lost from parking, but also some of the admin costs. So this is one area to challenge. For example, if you paid for one hour's parking in an empty car park and overstayed by 7 mintues (as happened to me) then it is hard to argue that a loss was suffered from the car park. OK, so they then need to pay £2.50 to get your details from the DVLA, and maybe they incur a couple of hours of admin time in printing and sending a letter. But that doesn't add up to £100. Normally, they offer to halve the amount if you pay in 14 days. Why is that? If it was a genuine pre-estimate of loss arising from the breach of contract itself, then the loss should be the same at 7 days as it is at 14 days. So that's one area of contest. Another is an area that you have unwittingly picked up on yourself: who owns the land, who benefits from the parking fees and who benefits from the "penalty" charges. This is another key issue, since there is a convincing argument that the companies have no right to levy these charges in their agreement with the landlords and according to the law of the land. There are probably 20-30 points in a well worded defence. Submit all of this at the beginnig and you have a better than evens chance of PE giving up. I also offered to pay the additional hour's parking charge and £10 towards their administration fee, which they declined. This would have helped had it gone to court (ie, they turned down an offer that actually would have turned them a profit given that their process and letter issuance is done by computer in seconds). However, the best advice is to either use the pepipoo forums or to use the service i referred to earlier. I had some background in contract law so i was able to construct a defence which evidently convinced them to back off, since it never went to court. They are nasty bullies and the more that this is communicated the better. JamesYoung
  • Score: 22

1:30pm Thu 28 Aug 14

MadMicke12 says...

Surely if these cameras can see the number plates, they can probably see the faces of the drivers in most cases, subject to sunlight dazzlement. Therefore, in most cases, it should not be hard to identify the driver as opposed to the keeper of the day.

Either way, this company are a load of shysters and should be banned from running any company that is designed to make money in excess of what is reasonable - but there again, what is reasonable.
Surely if these cameras can see the number plates, they can probably see the faces of the drivers in most cases, subject to sunlight dazzlement. Therefore, in most cases, it should not be hard to identify the driver as opposed to the keeper of the day. Either way, this company are a load of shysters and should be banned from running any company that is designed to make money in excess of what is reasonable - but there again, what is reasonable. MadMicke12
  • Score: 6

1:35pm Thu 28 Aug 14

Goldman says...

What about the businesses in Brewers Quay, will the council be giving them a business rates reduction as they want the public to boycott this car park. Doubt it.
What about the businesses in Brewers Quay, will the council be giving them a business rates reduction as they want the public to boycott this car park. Doubt it. Goldman
  • Score: -11

1:47pm Thu 28 Aug 14

GMax says...

JamesYoung wrote:
isitonlyme wrote:
I too used this car park and had a fine. I parked one evening, it was very dark and there were no lights in the car park so I couldn't read the instructions on the machine. I tried putting money in but it kept rejecting the coins. I tried appealing through their appeal process and was told that if I could prove the machine and lighting weren't working they would reconsider. When I tried to re-appeal but provided information of other occupants in the vehicle (we were the only car in the car park) who were all family members they refused my appeal, so I paid. Perhaps one way of boycotting the car park would be to dump some very large material at the entrance, on the private part of the land (covering up registration plates), so that no-one can enter the car park. I assume (I'm no expert) that as it is private land they would have to pay to get rid of the material.
What you need to understand about their appeals process is that they aim to reject every appeal that they receive. They make their money from the "fines", and have actually (bizarrely) told a district judge that without the "fines", their industry would collapse.
Sadly, if you had followed the process through, you would almost certainly have got away without paying.
There are many, many grounds for a defence, but here's a key one. In the UK, only the government has the right to issue fines or penalties. You'll notice that these words are not used on Parking Eyes letters,even though they are made to look like "real" council fines. You'll also (unless they have changed) notice words to the effect of "by paying this invoice you accept respinsibility" at the bottom of the letter - which is what alerted me to the fact that something is not right.
So without statutory authority to issue fines, they rely on contract law. They contend that by parking in the car park, you've accepted the terms (generally printed in very small print on a sign somewhere) and that a contract has been formed. So many people try to argue that they didn't see the sign and that thus there was no contract. The flaw with this is that it focuses the judge's attention on signage. However, it does not matter if the signage is visible or not if the contract itself is not valid.
Under English law, we don't allow made-up numbers to be charged as damages for breach of contract. You need to have a "genuine pre-estimate of loss". This means, for example, that Parking Eye have to demonstrate that the £100 is a genuine estimate of what it has cost their business - not just the sum lost from parking, but also some of the admin costs. So this is one area to challenge. For example, if you paid for one hour's parking in an empty car park and overstayed by 7 mintues (as happened to me) then it is hard to argue that a loss was suffered from the car park. OK, so they then need to pay £2.50 to get your details from the DVLA, and maybe they incur a couple of hours of admin time in printing and sending a letter. But that doesn't add up to £100. Normally, they offer to halve the amount if you pay in 14 days. Why is that? If it was a genuine pre-estimate of loss arising from the breach of contract itself, then the loss should be the same at 7 days as it is at 14 days. So that's one area of contest.
Another is an area that you have unwittingly picked up on yourself: who owns the land, who benefits from the parking fees and who benefits from the "penalty" charges. This is another key issue, since there is a convincing argument that the companies have no right to levy these charges in their agreement with the landlords and according to the law of the land.
There are probably 20-30 points in a well worded defence. Submit all of this at the beginnig and you have a better than evens chance of PE giving up. I also offered to pay the additional hour's parking charge and £10 towards their administration fee, which they declined. This would have helped had it gone to court (ie, they turned down an offer that actually would have turned them a profit given that their process and letter issuance is done by computer in seconds).
However, the best advice is to either use the pepipoo forums or to use the service i referred to earlier. I had some background in contract law so i was able to construct a defence which evidently convinced them to back off, since it never went to court.
They are nasty bullies and the more that this is communicated the better.
James is correct in what he wrote, as a private company they don't have the authority to issue a "parking fine" hence what they send you is a unenforceable invoice.
The make it look like they have the right to issue a ticket but they have no leg to stand on.
The best thing to do is to ignore it as they won't be able to do anything, certainly not take anyone to court.
I've had the pleasure of dealing with this 3 times before and my other half was afraid of not paying the first time and did so before I had all the information I needed, 2nd and 3rd time it went straight in the shredder and we certainly didn't pay, never heard a thing from them after that.
Research it and you will find all the info you need online.
.
GMax
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]isitonlyme[/bold] wrote: I too used this car park and had a fine. I parked one evening, it was very dark and there were no lights in the car park so I couldn't read the instructions on the machine. I tried putting money in but it kept rejecting the coins. I tried appealing through their appeal process and was told that if I could prove the machine and lighting weren't working they would reconsider. When I tried to re-appeal but provided information of other occupants in the vehicle (we were the only car in the car park) who were all family members they refused my appeal, so I paid. Perhaps one way of boycotting the car park would be to dump some very large material at the entrance, on the private part of the land (covering up registration plates), so that no-one can enter the car park. I assume (I'm no expert) that as it is private land they would have to pay to get rid of the material.[/p][/quote]What you need to understand about their appeals process is that they aim to reject every appeal that they receive. They make their money from the "fines", and have actually (bizarrely) told a district judge that without the "fines", their industry would collapse. Sadly, if you had followed the process through, you would almost certainly have got away without paying. There are many, many grounds for a defence, but here's a key one. In the UK, only the government has the right to issue fines or penalties. You'll notice that these words are not used on Parking Eyes letters,even though they are made to look like "real" council fines. You'll also (unless they have changed) notice words to the effect of "by paying this invoice you accept respinsibility" at the bottom of the letter - which is what alerted me to the fact that something is not right. So without statutory authority to issue fines, they rely on contract law. They contend that by parking in the car park, you've accepted the terms (generally printed in very small print on a sign somewhere) and that a contract has been formed. So many people try to argue that they didn't see the sign and that thus there was no contract. The flaw with this is that it focuses the judge's attention on signage. However, it does not matter if the signage is visible or not if the contract itself is not valid. Under English law, we don't allow made-up numbers to be charged as damages for breach of contract. You need to have a "genuine pre-estimate of loss". This means, for example, that Parking Eye have to demonstrate that the £100 is a genuine estimate of what it has cost their business - not just the sum lost from parking, but also some of the admin costs. So this is one area to challenge. For example, if you paid for one hour's parking in an empty car park and overstayed by 7 mintues (as happened to me) then it is hard to argue that a loss was suffered from the car park. OK, so they then need to pay £2.50 to get your details from the DVLA, and maybe they incur a couple of hours of admin time in printing and sending a letter. But that doesn't add up to £100. Normally, they offer to halve the amount if you pay in 14 days. Why is that? If it was a genuine pre-estimate of loss arising from the breach of contract itself, then the loss should be the same at 7 days as it is at 14 days. So that's one area of contest. Another is an area that you have unwittingly picked up on yourself: who owns the land, who benefits from the parking fees and who benefits from the "penalty" charges. This is another key issue, since there is a convincing argument that the companies have no right to levy these charges in their agreement with the landlords and according to the law of the land. There are probably 20-30 points in a well worded defence. Submit all of this at the beginnig and you have a better than evens chance of PE giving up. I also offered to pay the additional hour's parking charge and £10 towards their administration fee, which they declined. This would have helped had it gone to court (ie, they turned down an offer that actually would have turned them a profit given that their process and letter issuance is done by computer in seconds). However, the best advice is to either use the pepipoo forums or to use the service i referred to earlier. I had some background in contract law so i was able to construct a defence which evidently convinced them to back off, since it never went to court. They are nasty bullies and the more that this is communicated the better.[/p][/quote]James is correct in what he wrote, as a private company they don't have the authority to issue a "parking fine" hence what they send you is a unenforceable invoice. The make it look like they have the right to issue a ticket but they have no leg to stand on. The best thing to do is to ignore it as they won't be able to do anything, certainly not take anyone to court. I've had the pleasure of dealing with this 3 times before and my other half was afraid of not paying the first time and did so before I had all the information I needed, 2nd and 3rd time it went straight in the shredder and we certainly didn't pay, never heard a thing from them after that. Research it and you will find all the info you need online. . GMax GMax
  • Score: 6

2:02pm Thu 28 Aug 14

annotater says...

Turn it into a travellers site? That would be interesting.
Turn it into a travellers site? That would be interesting. annotater
  • Score: 13

2:07pm Thu 28 Aug 14

arlbergbahn says...

* Idea! Why not advertise this car park as the approved site for Travellers? Let's see what THEY make of their bullying!
* Idea! Why not advertise this car park as the approved site for Travellers? Let's see what THEY make of their bullying! arlbergbahn
  • Score: 14

2:25pm Thu 28 Aug 14

Rod Well says...

MadMicke12 wrote:
Surely if these cameras can see the number plates, they can probably see the faces of the drivers in most cases, subject to sunlight dazzlement. Therefore, in most cases, it should not be hard to identify the driver as opposed to the keeper of the day.

Either way, this company are a load of shysters and should be banned from running any company that is designed to make money in excess of what is reasonable - but there again, what is reasonable.
DVLA has a database of number plates vs. registered keepers which is what Parking Eye make use of. AFAIK, ParkingEye don't have facial recognition yet, but perhaps the police will sell them this service for a few quid. Next step after that will be to fine you for thinking about parking without a ticket.
[quote][p][bold]MadMicke12[/bold] wrote: Surely if these cameras can see the number plates, they can probably see the faces of the drivers in most cases, subject to sunlight dazzlement. Therefore, in most cases, it should not be hard to identify the driver as opposed to the keeper of the day. Either way, this company are a load of shysters and should be banned from running any company that is designed to make money in excess of what is reasonable - but there again, what is reasonable.[/p][/quote]DVLA has a database of number plates vs. registered keepers which is what Parking Eye make use of. AFAIK, ParkingEye don't have facial recognition yet, but perhaps the police will sell them this service for a few quid. Next step after that will be to fine you for thinking about parking without a ticket. Rod Well
  • Score: 5

2:51pm Thu 28 Aug 14

Brinboy says...

DON'T PAY THESE PRIVATE CAR PARK TICKETS. They are an invoice not a fine. It is a civil debit not a criminal one. See this site for all the details about them.
http://www.moneysavi
ngexpert.com/reclaim
/private-parking-tic
kets
DON'T PAY THESE PRIVATE CAR PARK TICKETS. They are an invoice not a fine. It is a civil debit not a criminal one. See this site for all the details about them. http://www.moneysavi ngexpert.com/reclaim /private-parking-tic kets Brinboy
  • Score: 8

3:43pm Thu 28 Aug 14

JamesYoung says...

Brinboy wrote:
DON'T PAY THESE PRIVATE CAR PARK TICKETS. They are an invoice not a fine. It is a civil debit not a criminal one. See this site for all the details about them.
http://www.moneysavi

ngexpert.com/reclaim

/private-parking-tic

kets
Two years ago, I'd have advised the same thing. However, Parking Eye have been bought by Capita and have become increasingly litigious. They only prosecute a handful of cases but while you can ignore all correspondence if you get a court summons be prepared to defend it (although PE will usually accept a £50 bung to avoid court if that is your preference) since if you don't turn up they will win by default. It's also your moral duty to have a winning defence since PE are very fond of quoting how many cases they have won (most people pay up when they receive court papers and PE claim this as a win). The reality is that they lose the vast majority and the only ones they win are either down to judges who don't know the law (more common than you might expect) or poorly constructed defences.
[quote][p][bold]Brinboy[/bold] wrote: DON'T PAY THESE PRIVATE CAR PARK TICKETS. They are an invoice not a fine. It is a civil debit not a criminal one. See this site for all the details about them. http://www.moneysavi ngexpert.com/reclaim /private-parking-tic kets[/p][/quote]Two years ago, I'd have advised the same thing. However, Parking Eye have been bought by Capita and have become increasingly litigious. They only prosecute a handful of cases but while you can ignore all correspondence if you get a court summons be prepared to defend it (although PE will usually accept a £50 bung to avoid court if that is your preference) since if you don't turn up they will win by default. It's also your moral duty to have a winning defence since PE are very fond of quoting how many cases they have won (most people pay up when they receive court papers and PE claim this as a win). The reality is that they lose the vast majority and the only ones they win are either down to judges who don't know the law (more common than you might expect) or poorly constructed defences. JamesYoung
  • Score: 10

7:13pm Thu 28 Aug 14

Under35andout says...

black tape go park in there lol
black tape go park in there lol Under35andout
  • Score: -4

7:17pm Thu 28 Aug 14

Under35andout says...

what about a air rifle or just cut the wires with a axe lol
what about a air rifle or just cut the wires with a axe lol Under35andout
  • Score: -3

7:18pm Thu 28 Aug 14

Under35andout says...

surely the council saying they taking over our carpark should just let the travellers come and take it over smash it about a bit then go on somewhere else lol
surely the council saying they taking over our carpark should just let the travellers come and take it over smash it about a bit then go on somewhere else lol Under35andout
  • Score: 0

8:56pm Thu 28 Aug 14

Laadeeda says...

That is one of the reasons I now use public transport.
Privare car parking companies, high council car park charges.
If I didn't know better I would think Weymouth didn't want motorists!!
The cynic in me says, that would solve the traffic congestion too!!!
That is one of the reasons I now use public transport. Privare car parking companies, high council car park charges. If I didn't know better I would think Weymouth didn't want motorists!! The cynic in me says, that would solve the traffic congestion too!!! Laadeeda
  • Score: 0

9:07pm Thu 28 Aug 14

weymouth donkey says...

I bought a ticket for this car park for 2 hours and got a fine for parking for 80 minutes ! after a fight they gave in , a bunch of chancers nothing else , be warned .
I bought a ticket for this car park for 2 hours and got a fine for parking for 80 minutes ! after a fight they gave in , a bunch of chancers nothing else , be warned . weymouth donkey
  • Score: 8

9:08pm Thu 28 Aug 14

ksmain says...

I do not understand people who just cough up these fines. Their only redress is via the courts, a very long process to get back very little and with a well-documented miniscule chance of success, and many of them will give up if you just ignore them. I would have just ignored them - especially as the person here only made one mistake letter on her car reg. I think it would have immediately been apparent to the court that she had purchased a ticket had the case even got there, of course.

While we were in London once, one such company tried this on with us, saying that we overstayed in a car park where the maximum stay was 2 hours but for which there was no charge. After getting 3 'Fixed Penalty Notices' (that carried no legal weight as they had not been issued by a Government Official - so they were really just invoices) they tried to up the fine from £95 to £140 under the threat of impending court action. I was tempted to carry on ignoring them, but having a week off, I decided to write to the Site Landlords (these parking companies are invariably contracted and don't own the site) - to inform them that their parking companies were issuing supposedly official penalty notices that weren't and that the final award by the court in any case was likely to be the fee for parking there (£0 in our case). The following week, I had a letter from the Car Parking Company telling me that on this occasion they were dropping the case - surprise, surprise. At the end of the day, IMO, most landlords don't want the negative publicity.

If you want to see I recommend looking on the 'MoneySavingExpert' website and you will find many instances of this type of case.
I do not understand people who just cough up these fines. Their only redress is via the courts, a very long process to get back very little and with a well-documented miniscule chance of success, and many of them will give up if you just ignore them. I would have just ignored them - especially as the person here only made one mistake letter on her car reg. I think it would have immediately been apparent to the court that she had purchased a ticket had the case even got there, of course. While we were in London once, one such company tried this on with us, saying that we overstayed in a car park where the maximum stay was 2 hours but for which there was no charge. After getting 3 'Fixed Penalty Notices' (that carried no legal weight as they had not been issued by a Government Official - so they were really just invoices) they tried to up the fine from £95 to £140 under the threat of impending court action. I was tempted to carry on ignoring them, but having a week off, I decided to write to the Site Landlords (these parking companies are invariably contracted and don't own the site) - to inform them that their parking companies were issuing supposedly official penalty notices that weren't and that the final award by the court in any case was likely to be the fee for parking there (£0 in our case). The following week, I had a letter from the Car Parking Company telling me that on this occasion they were dropping the case - surprise, surprise. At the end of the day, IMO, most landlords don't want the negative publicity. If you want to see I recommend looking on the 'MoneySavingExpert' website and you will find many instances of this type of case. ksmain
  • Score: 5

9:11pm Thu 28 Aug 14

ksmain says...

Stranger wrote:
These companies get the details of the vehicles registered keeper from the DVLA. However, the driver of the vehicle enters into a contract with the parking company when they park there not the keeper. Unlike the road traffic act, as the keeper you are under no legal obligation to tell them who was driving the vehicle on the day it entered into the "contract" and as they cannot prove who it was there is no case to answer. No court will ever uphold an enforcement.

Sorry parking eye... I simply cannot remember who was driving the car last month ;)
I'll think that the law you are referring to above was changed by new law brought in 2012. Car parking companies now don't have to identify the driver of the vehicle - they will just pursue action against the keeper.
[quote][p][bold]Stranger[/bold] wrote: These companies get the details of the vehicles registered keeper from the DVLA. However, the driver of the vehicle enters into a contract with the parking company when they park there not the keeper. Unlike the road traffic act, as the keeper you are under no legal obligation to tell them who was driving the vehicle on the day it entered into the "contract" and as they cannot prove who it was there is no case to answer. No court will ever uphold an enforcement. Sorry parking eye... I simply cannot remember who was driving the car last month ;)[/p][/quote]I'll think that the law you are referring to above was changed by new law brought in 2012. Car parking companies now don't have to identify the driver of the vehicle - they will just pursue action against the keeper. ksmain
  • Score: 3

9:13pm Thu 28 Aug 14

Simon Nicholas says...

MrTomSmith wrote:
I find myself strongly agreeing with Christine James or strongly disagreeing which is annoying. She is obviously correct here. What I do find wrong though is the lack of power of the council or anybody to stop this.

Another problem is, this is the car park that is coming in the planning permission application by Brewers Quay.

If the car park has been such a pain in the whatsit to the council then really it is a forgone conclusion as to which way they will vote (maybe not that clear cut but surely it will make a big difference) and isn't the Car Park owned by the developers anyway?

Sounds like they are sitting in the box seat at the moment, if that is correct. Gives you a good impression of who you are dealing with though doesn't it? They failed with the first attempt of developing Brewers Quay after kicking everyone out, now want to do it again, but in the meantime happy to sting us in the car park, nice people.
Both of the car parks behind Brewers Quay are owned by Brewers Quay LLP. The bigger of the car parks is the one earmarked for development - the smaller one will remain.

As for "kicking everybody out", that only applied to the first floor tennants, of which there were few in the end. All the shops on the ground floor were actually directly operated by Brewers Quay themselves, so in these cases, the staff were also directly employed and unfortunately had to be made redundant.

The building closed on the date it did as the re-development was due to start a short time afterwards. Unfortunately, and with no prior warning, the parent company of the "anchor client" ( the hotel chain) went into financial meltdown, and they were not able to proceed with their involvement.

The financial crisis then made it impossible for Brewers Qauy LLP to find a replacement hotel chain willing to replace them.

You will note the new application no longer includes a hotel.

I don`t see why you have to have a go at people that you have presumably never met to be honest. This is a rare example of major private sector investment in Weymouth and should be applauded.

Simon N,
[quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: I find myself strongly agreeing with Christine James or strongly disagreeing which is annoying. She is obviously correct here. What I do find wrong though is the lack of power of the council or anybody to stop this. Another problem is, this is the car park that is coming in the planning permission application by Brewers Quay. If the car park has been such a pain in the whatsit to the council then really it is a forgone conclusion as to which way they will vote (maybe not that clear cut but surely it will make a big difference) and isn't the Car Park owned by the developers anyway? Sounds like they are sitting in the box seat at the moment, if that is correct. Gives you a good impression of who you are dealing with though doesn't it? They failed with the first attempt of developing Brewers Quay after kicking everyone out, now want to do it again, but in the meantime happy to sting us in the car park, nice people.[/p][/quote]Both of the car parks behind Brewers Quay are owned by Brewers Quay LLP. The bigger of the car parks is the one earmarked for development - the smaller one will remain. As for "kicking everybody out", that only applied to the first floor tennants, of which there were few in the end. All the shops on the ground floor were actually directly operated by Brewers Quay themselves, so in these cases, the staff were also directly employed and unfortunately had to be made redundant. The building closed on the date it did as the re-development was due to start a short time afterwards. Unfortunately, and with no prior warning, the parent company of the "anchor client" ( the hotel chain) went into financial meltdown, and they were not able to proceed with their involvement. The financial crisis then made it impossible for Brewers Qauy LLP to find a replacement hotel chain willing to replace them. You will note the new application no longer includes a hotel. I don`t see why you have to have a go at people that you have presumably never met to be honest. This is a rare example of major private sector investment in Weymouth and should be applauded. Simon N, Simon Nicholas
  • Score: -11

9:34pm Thu 28 Aug 14

MadMicke12 says...

Goldman wrote:
What about the businesses in Brewers Quay, will the council be giving them a business rates reduction as they want the public to boycott this car park. Doubt it.
Council does not apply the business rates, the government decide that one, so, sorry, your argument fails to meet any merit. But I do understand what you mean, but if I had the chance, I would treble their business rates and not allow them to increase their charges to offset that increase in rates, and those rates and parking charges would be held until such times as this money grabbing sonofabitch company decides to play fair with the people parking.
[quote][p][bold]Goldman[/bold] wrote: What about the businesses in Brewers Quay, will the council be giving them a business rates reduction as they want the public to boycott this car park. Doubt it.[/p][/quote]Council does not apply the business rates, the government decide that one, so, sorry, your argument fails to meet any merit. But I do understand what you mean, but if I had the chance, I would treble their business rates and not allow them to increase their charges to offset that increase in rates, and those rates and parking charges would be held until such times as this money grabbing sonofabitch company decides to play fair with the people parking. MadMicke12
  • Score: 1

9:41pm Thu 28 Aug 14

MadMicke12 says...

MadMicke12 wrote:
Goldman wrote:
What about the businesses in Brewers Quay, will the council be giving them a business rates reduction as they want the public to boycott this car park. Doubt it.
Council does not apply the business rates, the government decide that one, so, sorry, your argument fails to meet any merit. But I do understand what you mean, but if I had the chance, I would treble their business rates and not allow them to increase their charges to offset that increase in rates, and those rates and parking charges would be held until such times as this money grabbing sonofabitch company decides to play fair with the people parking.
Sorry, sort of dumb blonde moment not reading the comment properly, so just to ensure there is no mistake, I am not having any go at the employees or company of Brewers Quay LLP, just those blinking parking companies.
[quote][p][bold]MadMicke12[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Goldman[/bold] wrote: What about the businesses in Brewers Quay, will the council be giving them a business rates reduction as they want the public to boycott this car park. Doubt it.[/p][/quote]Council does not apply the business rates, the government decide that one, so, sorry, your argument fails to meet any merit. But I do understand what you mean, but if I had the chance, I would treble their business rates and not allow them to increase their charges to offset that increase in rates, and those rates and parking charges would be held until such times as this money grabbing sonofabitch company decides to play fair with the people parking.[/p][/quote]Sorry, sort of dumb blonde moment not reading the comment properly, so just to ensure there is no mistake, I am not having any go at the employees or company of Brewers Quay LLP, just those blinking parking companies. MadMicke12
  • Score: 0

10:50pm Thu 28 Aug 14

radings says...

if you get a fine from any parking eye car park go back at night steal the ANPR cameras and sell them on eBay money made back!! :-)
if you get a fine from any parking eye car park go back at night steal the ANPR cameras and sell them on eBay money made back!! :-) radings
  • Score: 4

7:49am Fri 29 Aug 14

arlbergbahn says...

Simon Nicholas wrote:
MrTomSmith wrote:
I find myself strongly agreeing with Christine James or strongly disagreeing which is annoying. She is obviously correct here. What I do find wrong though is the lack of power of the council or anybody to stop this.

Another problem is, this is the car park that is coming in the planning permission application by Brewers Quay.

If the car park has been such a pain in the whatsit to the council then really it is a forgone conclusion as to which way they will vote (maybe not that clear cut but surely it will make a big difference) and isn't the Car Park owned by the developers anyway?

Sounds like they are sitting in the box seat at the moment, if that is correct. Gives you a good impression of who you are dealing with though doesn't it? They failed with the first attempt of developing Brewers Quay after kicking everyone out, now want to do it again, but in the meantime happy to sting us in the car park, nice people.
Both of the car parks behind Brewers Quay are owned by Brewers Quay LLP. The bigger of the car parks is the one earmarked for development - the smaller one will remain.

As for "kicking everybody out", that only applied to the first floor tennants, of which there were few in the end. All the shops on the ground floor were actually directly operated by Brewers Quay themselves, so in these cases, the staff were also directly employed and unfortunately had to be made redundant.

The building closed on the date it did as the re-development was due to start a short time afterwards. Unfortunately, and with no prior warning, the parent company of the "anchor client" ( the hotel chain) went into financial meltdown, and they were not able to proceed with their involvement.

The financial crisis then made it impossible for Brewers Qauy LLP to find a replacement hotel chain willing to replace them.

You will note the new application no longer includes a hotel.

I don`t see why you have to have a go at people that you have presumably never met to be honest. This is a rare example of major private sector investment in Weymouth and should be applauded.

Simon N,
So why should we believe them this time? Brewers Quay Investments LLC don't exactly have a brilliant record of success so fr, do they. And in any case, does that justify this little bit of bullying? I'd say it was perfectly justifiable to have a go at such a bunch of bullies and ripoff merchants.
[quote][p][bold]Simon Nicholas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: I find myself strongly agreeing with Christine James or strongly disagreeing which is annoying. She is obviously correct here. What I do find wrong though is the lack of power of the council or anybody to stop this. Another problem is, this is the car park that is coming in the planning permission application by Brewers Quay. If the car park has been such a pain in the whatsit to the council then really it is a forgone conclusion as to which way they will vote (maybe not that clear cut but surely it will make a big difference) and isn't the Car Park owned by the developers anyway? Sounds like they are sitting in the box seat at the moment, if that is correct. Gives you a good impression of who you are dealing with though doesn't it? They failed with the first attempt of developing Brewers Quay after kicking everyone out, now want to do it again, but in the meantime happy to sting us in the car park, nice people.[/p][/quote]Both of the car parks behind Brewers Quay are owned by Brewers Quay LLP. The bigger of the car parks is the one earmarked for development - the smaller one will remain. As for "kicking everybody out", that only applied to the first floor tennants, of which there were few in the end. All the shops on the ground floor were actually directly operated by Brewers Quay themselves, so in these cases, the staff were also directly employed and unfortunately had to be made redundant. The building closed on the date it did as the re-development was due to start a short time afterwards. Unfortunately, and with no prior warning, the parent company of the "anchor client" ( the hotel chain) went into financial meltdown, and they were not able to proceed with their involvement. The financial crisis then made it impossible for Brewers Qauy LLP to find a replacement hotel chain willing to replace them. You will note the new application no longer includes a hotel. I don`t see why you have to have a go at people that you have presumably never met to be honest. This is a rare example of major private sector investment in Weymouth and should be applauded. Simon N,[/p][/quote]So why should we believe them this time? Brewers Quay Investments LLC don't exactly have a brilliant record of success so fr, do they. And in any case, does that justify this little bit of bullying? I'd say it was perfectly justifiable to have a go at such a bunch of bullies and ripoff merchants. arlbergbahn
  • Score: 1

12:33pm Fri 29 Aug 14

SteveB19 says...

I parked here once and was fined for the same reason as Mrs Rabbitt. A friend mixed up two of the letters on my resgistration. In response to the fine, I had luckily not thrown away the ticket. In this situation, keeping the car untidy worked in my favour. I wrote a letter and photocopied the tparking ticket. Suffice to say, Parking Eye agreed to drop the charge. Subsequently however, I haven't parked there since.
I parked here once and was fined for the same reason as Mrs Rabbitt. A friend mixed up two of the letters on my resgistration. In response to the fine, I had luckily not thrown away the ticket. In this situation, keeping the car untidy worked in my favour. I wrote a letter and photocopied the tparking ticket. Suffice to say, Parking Eye agreed to drop the charge. Subsequently however, I haven't parked there since. SteveB19
  • Score: 0

1:25pm Fri 29 Aug 14

jmlparker says...

I experienced the disproportionate fines in this car park some time ago, paid £3.60 was 17 minutes over returning (admittedly my fault), but is the fine really justifiable given the length of the overstay and the amount I paid for a car park which is out of the town centre.

We used to regularly shop in Weymouth, but since this incident we've never been back and I don't think we ever will. We use Dorchester and Yeovil now where we can find places to park for free, much better range of shops and lack of fines for just wanting spend our money with retailers.
I experienced the disproportionate fines in this car park some time ago, paid £3.60 was 17 minutes over returning (admittedly my fault), but is the fine really justifiable given the length of the overstay and the amount I paid for a car park which is out of the town centre. We used to regularly shop in Weymouth, but since this incident we've never been back and I don't think we ever will. We use Dorchester and Yeovil now where we can find places to park for free, much better range of shops and lack of fines for just wanting spend our money with retailers. jmlparker
  • Score: 7

2:08pm Fri 29 Aug 14

arlbergbahn says...

arlbergbahn wrote:
Simon Nicholas wrote:
MrTomSmith wrote:
I find myself strongly agreeing with Christine James or strongly disagreeing which is annoying. She is obviously correct here. What I do find wrong though is the lack of power of the council or anybody to stop this.

Another problem is, this is the car park that is coming in the planning permission application by Brewers Quay.

If the car park has been such a pain in the whatsit to the council then really it is a forgone conclusion as to which way they will vote (maybe not that clear cut but surely it will make a big difference) and isn't the Car Park owned by the developers anyway?

Sounds like they are sitting in the box seat at the moment, if that is correct. Gives you a good impression of who you are dealing with though doesn't it? They failed with the first attempt of developing Brewers Quay after kicking everyone out, now want to do it again, but in the meantime happy to sting us in the car park, nice people.
Both of the car parks behind Brewers Quay are owned by Brewers Quay LLP. The bigger of the car parks is the one earmarked for development - the smaller one will remain.

As for "kicking everybody out", that only applied to the first floor tennants, of which there were few in the end. All the shops on the ground floor were actually directly operated by Brewers Quay themselves, so in these cases, the staff were also directly employed and unfortunately had to be made redundant.

The building closed on the date it did as the re-development was due to start a short time afterwards. Unfortunately, and with no prior warning, the parent company of the "anchor client" ( the hotel chain) went into financial meltdown, and they were not able to proceed with their involvement.

The financial crisis then made it impossible for Brewers Qauy LLP to find a replacement hotel chain willing to replace them.

You will note the new application no longer includes a hotel.

I don`t see why you have to have a go at people that you have presumably never met to be honest. This is a rare example of major private sector investment in Weymouth and should be applauded.

Simon N,
So why should we believe them this time? Brewers Quay Investments LLC don't exactly have a brilliant record of success so fr, do they. And in any case, does that justify this little bit of bullying? I'd say it was perfectly justifiable to have a go at such a bunch of bullies and ripoff merchants.
i wonder who voted thumbs down to this, and why don't you have to explain why you did?
[quote][p][bold]arlbergbahn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Simon Nicholas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: I find myself strongly agreeing with Christine James or strongly disagreeing which is annoying. She is obviously correct here. What I do find wrong though is the lack of power of the council or anybody to stop this. Another problem is, this is the car park that is coming in the planning permission application by Brewers Quay. If the car park has been such a pain in the whatsit to the council then really it is a forgone conclusion as to which way they will vote (maybe not that clear cut but surely it will make a big difference) and isn't the Car Park owned by the developers anyway? Sounds like they are sitting in the box seat at the moment, if that is correct. Gives you a good impression of who you are dealing with though doesn't it? They failed with the first attempt of developing Brewers Quay after kicking everyone out, now want to do it again, but in the meantime happy to sting us in the car park, nice people.[/p][/quote]Both of the car parks behind Brewers Quay are owned by Brewers Quay LLP. The bigger of the car parks is the one earmarked for development - the smaller one will remain. As for "kicking everybody out", that only applied to the first floor tennants, of which there were few in the end. All the shops on the ground floor were actually directly operated by Brewers Quay themselves, so in these cases, the staff were also directly employed and unfortunately had to be made redundant. The building closed on the date it did as the re-development was due to start a short time afterwards. Unfortunately, and with no prior warning, the parent company of the "anchor client" ( the hotel chain) went into financial meltdown, and they were not able to proceed with their involvement. The financial crisis then made it impossible for Brewers Qauy LLP to find a replacement hotel chain willing to replace them. You will note the new application no longer includes a hotel. I don`t see why you have to have a go at people that you have presumably never met to be honest. This is a rare example of major private sector investment in Weymouth and should be applauded. Simon N,[/p][/quote]So why should we believe them this time? Brewers Quay Investments LLC don't exactly have a brilliant record of success so fr, do they. And in any case, does that justify this little bit of bullying? I'd say it was perfectly justifiable to have a go at such a bunch of bullies and ripoff merchants.[/p][/quote]i wonder who voted thumbs down to this, and why don't you have to explain why you did? arlbergbahn
  • Score: -1

9:59pm Fri 29 Aug 14

MrTomSmith says...

Simon Nicholas wrote:
MrTomSmith wrote:
I find myself strongly agreeing with Christine James or strongly disagreeing which is annoying. She is obviously correct here. What I do find wrong though is the lack of power of the council or anybody to stop this.

Another problem is, this is the car park that is coming in the planning permission application by Brewers Quay.

If the car park has been such a pain in the whatsit to the council then really it is a forgone conclusion as to which way they will vote (maybe not that clear cut but surely it will make a big difference) and isn't the Car Park owned by the developers anyway?

Sounds like they are sitting in the box seat at the moment, if that is correct. Gives you a good impression of who you are dealing with though doesn't it? They failed with the first attempt of developing Brewers Quay after kicking everyone out, now want to do it again, but in the meantime happy to sting us in the car park, nice people.
Both of the car parks behind Brewers Quay are owned by Brewers Quay LLP. The bigger of the car parks is the one earmarked for development - the smaller one will remain.

As for "kicking everybody out", that only applied to the first floor tennants, of which there were few in the end. All the shops on the ground floor were actually directly operated by Brewers Quay themselves, so in these cases, the staff were also directly employed and unfortunately had to be made redundant.

The building closed on the date it did as the re-development was due to start a short time afterwards. Unfortunately, and with no prior warning, the parent company of the "anchor client" ( the hotel chain) went into financial meltdown, and they were not able to proceed with their involvement.

The financial crisis then made it impossible for Brewers Qauy LLP to find a replacement hotel chain willing to replace them.

You will note the new application no longer includes a hotel.

I don`t see why you have to have a go at people that you have presumably never met to be honest. This is a rare example of major private sector investment in Weymouth and should be applauded.

Simon N,
Crazy, I say they kicked people out, and you say as of kicking people out, it was only those on the first floor. Are you sure about that? I know 3 people at least who were kicked out on other floors. But whatever. you have AGREED with what I originally said.

Why do you have meet someone to agree with them? That it a completely ridiculous thing to say.

This is a not a rare example of private sector investment in Weymouth at at it is another company they are nasty bunch, they have proved it with the car park, they have proved it 3 years ago, and they will prove it again if we let them.

Up to you want you believe, but come back at me and I will defend it again and again, and make you and the the company look even worse every single time. Can't wait for your reply.
[quote][p][bold]Simon Nicholas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: I find myself strongly agreeing with Christine James or strongly disagreeing which is annoying. She is obviously correct here. What I do find wrong though is the lack of power of the council or anybody to stop this. Another problem is, this is the car park that is coming in the planning permission application by Brewers Quay. If the car park has been such a pain in the whatsit to the council then really it is a forgone conclusion as to which way they will vote (maybe not that clear cut but surely it will make a big difference) and isn't the Car Park owned by the developers anyway? Sounds like they are sitting in the box seat at the moment, if that is correct. Gives you a good impression of who you are dealing with though doesn't it? They failed with the first attempt of developing Brewers Quay after kicking everyone out, now want to do it again, but in the meantime happy to sting us in the car park, nice people.[/p][/quote]Both of the car parks behind Brewers Quay are owned by Brewers Quay LLP. The bigger of the car parks is the one earmarked for development - the smaller one will remain. As for "kicking everybody out", that only applied to the first floor tennants, of which there were few in the end. All the shops on the ground floor were actually directly operated by Brewers Quay themselves, so in these cases, the staff were also directly employed and unfortunately had to be made redundant. The building closed on the date it did as the re-development was due to start a short time afterwards. Unfortunately, and with no prior warning, the parent company of the "anchor client" ( the hotel chain) went into financial meltdown, and they were not able to proceed with their involvement. The financial crisis then made it impossible for Brewers Qauy LLP to find a replacement hotel chain willing to replace them. You will note the new application no longer includes a hotel. I don`t see why you have to have a go at people that you have presumably never met to be honest. This is a rare example of major private sector investment in Weymouth and should be applauded. Simon N,[/p][/quote]Crazy, I say they kicked people out, and you say as of kicking people out, it was only those on the first floor. Are you sure about that? I know 3 people at least who were kicked out on other floors. But whatever. you have AGREED with what I originally said. Why do you have meet someone to agree with them? That it a completely ridiculous thing to say. This is a not a rare example of private sector investment in Weymouth at at it is another company they are nasty bunch, they have proved it with the car park, they have proved it 3 years ago, and they will prove it again if we let them. Up to you want you believe, but come back at me and I will defend it again and again, and make you and the the company look even worse every single time. Can't wait for your reply. MrTomSmith
  • Score: 1

11:10am Sat 30 Aug 14

ksmain says...

MrTomSmith wrote:
Simon Nicholas wrote:
MrTomSmith wrote:
I find myself strongly agreeing with Christine James or strongly disagreeing which is annoying. She is obviously correct here. What I do find wrong though is the lack of power of the council or anybody to stop this.

Another problem is, this is the car park that is coming in the planning permission application by Brewers Quay.

If the car park has been such a pain in the whatsit to the council then really it is a forgone conclusion as to which way they will vote (maybe not that clear cut but surely it will make a big difference) and isn't the Car Park owned by the developers anyway?

Sounds like they are sitting in the box seat at the moment, if that is correct. Gives you a good impression of who you are dealing with though doesn't it? They failed with the first attempt of developing Brewers Quay after kicking everyone out, now want to do it again, but in the meantime happy to sting us in the car park, nice people.
Both of the car parks behind Brewers Quay are owned by Brewers Quay LLP. The bigger of the car parks is the one earmarked for development - the smaller one will remain.

As for "kicking everybody out", that only applied to the first floor tennants, of which there were few in the end. All the shops on the ground floor were actually directly operated by Brewers Quay themselves, so in these cases, the staff were also directly employed and unfortunately had to be made redundant.

The building closed on the date it did as the re-development was due to start a short time afterwards. Unfortunately, and with no prior warning, the parent company of the "anchor client" ( the hotel chain) went into financial meltdown, and they were not able to proceed with their involvement.

The financial crisis then made it impossible for Brewers Qauy LLP to find a replacement hotel chain willing to replace them.

You will note the new application no longer includes a hotel.

I don`t see why you have to have a go at people that you have presumably never met to be honest. This is a rare example of major private sector investment in Weymouth and should be applauded.

Simon N,
Crazy, I say they kicked people out, and you say as of kicking people out, it was only those on the first floor. Are you sure about that? I know 3 people at least who were kicked out on other floors. But whatever. you have AGREED with what I originally said.

Why do you have meet someone to agree with them? That it a completely ridiculous thing to say.

This is a not a rare example of private sector investment in Weymouth at at it is another company they are nasty bunch, they have proved it with the car park, they have proved it 3 years ago, and they will prove it again if we let them.

Up to you want you believe, but come back at me and I will defend it again and again, and make you and the the company look even worse every single time. Can't wait for your reply.
But is it the same people who are landlords of the site, or who manage the site, and who manage the car parking of the site? Very often the firm that manages the car parking is a contractor to the person managing or who is the landlord of the site.
[quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Simon Nicholas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: I find myself strongly agreeing with Christine James or strongly disagreeing which is annoying. She is obviously correct here. What I do find wrong though is the lack of power of the council or anybody to stop this. Another problem is, this is the car park that is coming in the planning permission application by Brewers Quay. If the car park has been such a pain in the whatsit to the council then really it is a forgone conclusion as to which way they will vote (maybe not that clear cut but surely it will make a big difference) and isn't the Car Park owned by the developers anyway? Sounds like they are sitting in the box seat at the moment, if that is correct. Gives you a good impression of who you are dealing with though doesn't it? They failed with the first attempt of developing Brewers Quay after kicking everyone out, now want to do it again, but in the meantime happy to sting us in the car park, nice people.[/p][/quote]Both of the car parks behind Brewers Quay are owned by Brewers Quay LLP. The bigger of the car parks is the one earmarked for development - the smaller one will remain. As for "kicking everybody out", that only applied to the first floor tennants, of which there were few in the end. All the shops on the ground floor were actually directly operated by Brewers Quay themselves, so in these cases, the staff were also directly employed and unfortunately had to be made redundant. The building closed on the date it did as the re-development was due to start a short time afterwards. Unfortunately, and with no prior warning, the parent company of the "anchor client" ( the hotel chain) went into financial meltdown, and they were not able to proceed with their involvement. The financial crisis then made it impossible for Brewers Qauy LLP to find a replacement hotel chain willing to replace them. You will note the new application no longer includes a hotel. I don`t see why you have to have a go at people that you have presumably never met to be honest. This is a rare example of major private sector investment in Weymouth and should be applauded. Simon N,[/p][/quote]Crazy, I say they kicked people out, and you say as of kicking people out, it was only those on the first floor. Are you sure about that? I know 3 people at least who were kicked out on other floors. But whatever. you have AGREED with what I originally said. Why do you have meet someone to agree with them? That it a completely ridiculous thing to say. This is a not a rare example of private sector investment in Weymouth at at it is another company they are nasty bunch, they have proved it with the car park, they have proved it 3 years ago, and they will prove it again if we let them. Up to you want you believe, but come back at me and I will defend it again and again, and make you and the the company look even worse every single time. Can't wait for your reply.[/p][/quote]But is it the same people who are landlords of the site, or who manage the site, and who manage the car parking of the site? Very often the firm that manages the car parking is a contractor to the person managing or who is the landlord of the site. ksmain
  • Score: 1

2:43pm Sun 31 Aug 14

Simon Nicholas says...

ksmain wrote:
MrTomSmith wrote:
Simon Nicholas wrote:
MrTomSmith wrote:
I find myself strongly agreeing with Christine James or strongly disagreeing which is annoying. She is obviously correct here. What I do find wrong though is the lack of power of the council or anybody to stop this.

Another problem is, this is the car park that is coming in the planning permission application by Brewers Quay.

If the car park has been such a pain in the whatsit to the council then really it is a forgone conclusion as to which way they will vote (maybe not that clear cut but surely it will make a big difference) and isn't the Car Park owned by the developers anyway?

Sounds like they are sitting in the box seat at the moment, if that is correct. Gives you a good impression of who you are dealing with though doesn't it? They failed with the first attempt of developing Brewers Quay after kicking everyone out, now want to do it again, but in the meantime happy to sting us in the car park, nice people.
Both of the car parks behind Brewers Quay are owned by Brewers Quay LLP. The bigger of the car parks is the one earmarked for development - the smaller one will remain.

As for "kicking everybody out", that only applied to the first floor tennants, of which there were few in the end. All the shops on the ground floor were actually directly operated by Brewers Quay themselves, so in these cases, the staff were also directly employed and unfortunately had to be made redundant.

The building closed on the date it did as the re-development was due to start a short time afterwards. Unfortunately, and with no prior warning, the parent company of the "anchor client" ( the hotel chain) went into financial meltdown, and they were not able to proceed with their involvement.

The financial crisis then made it impossible for Brewers Qauy LLP to find a replacement hotel chain willing to replace them.

You will note the new application no longer includes a hotel.

I don`t see why you have to have a go at people that you have presumably never met to be honest. This is a rare example of major private sector investment in Weymouth and should be applauded.

Simon N,
Crazy, I say they kicked people out, and you say as of kicking people out, it was only those on the first floor. Are you sure about that? I know 3 people at least who were kicked out on other floors. But whatever. you have AGREED with what I originally said.

Why do you have meet someone to agree with them? That it a completely ridiculous thing to say.

This is a not a rare example of private sector investment in Weymouth at at it is another company they are nasty bunch, they have proved it with the car park, they have proved it 3 years ago, and they will prove it again if we let them.

Up to you want you believe, but come back at me and I will defend it again and again, and make you and the the company look even worse every single time. Can't wait for your reply.
But is it the same people who are landlords of the site, or who manage the site, and who manage the car parking of the site? Very often the firm that manages the car parking is a contractor to the person managing or who is the landlord of the site.
Quite correct ksmain, Parking Eye are a contractor to Brewers Quay LLP, and completely independent to them.

You could argue that Brewers Quay LLP should not have used the services of Parking Eye in the first place, but that is a separate issue surely?.

I do have contact with some of the Brewers Quay development team, and have always found them to be upstanding, courteous and hardworking people to be honest.

I am not willing to get dragged in to another slagging match with Mr. Tom Smith, other to repeat again that I would not like to live next to him.

I will however continue to post comments on this website, regardless whether Mr Smith likes it or not, where I feel I can add facts to a debate or to stand up for anyone who is being unfairly maligned.

As for Brewers Quay (and i can`t believe I have to repeat myself again),
ALL the ground floor retails units (with the exception of the Excise House pub) were owned and operated by Brewers Quay. The only other floor used for retail for the first, and this is where the tenants were situated.

Simon N.
[quote][p][bold]ksmain[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Simon Nicholas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: I find myself strongly agreeing with Christine James or strongly disagreeing which is annoying. She is obviously correct here. What I do find wrong though is the lack of power of the council or anybody to stop this. Another problem is, this is the car park that is coming in the planning permission application by Brewers Quay. If the car park has been such a pain in the whatsit to the council then really it is a forgone conclusion as to which way they will vote (maybe not that clear cut but surely it will make a big difference) and isn't the Car Park owned by the developers anyway? Sounds like they are sitting in the box seat at the moment, if that is correct. Gives you a good impression of who you are dealing with though doesn't it? They failed with the first attempt of developing Brewers Quay after kicking everyone out, now want to do it again, but in the meantime happy to sting us in the car park, nice people.[/p][/quote]Both of the car parks behind Brewers Quay are owned by Brewers Quay LLP. The bigger of the car parks is the one earmarked for development - the smaller one will remain. As for "kicking everybody out", that only applied to the first floor tennants, of which there were few in the end. All the shops on the ground floor were actually directly operated by Brewers Quay themselves, so in these cases, the staff were also directly employed and unfortunately had to be made redundant. The building closed on the date it did as the re-development was due to start a short time afterwards. Unfortunately, and with no prior warning, the parent company of the "anchor client" ( the hotel chain) went into financial meltdown, and they were not able to proceed with their involvement. The financial crisis then made it impossible for Brewers Qauy LLP to find a replacement hotel chain willing to replace them. You will note the new application no longer includes a hotel. I don`t see why you have to have a go at people that you have presumably never met to be honest. This is a rare example of major private sector investment in Weymouth and should be applauded. Simon N,[/p][/quote]Crazy, I say they kicked people out, and you say as of kicking people out, it was only those on the first floor. Are you sure about that? I know 3 people at least who were kicked out on other floors. But whatever. you have AGREED with what I originally said. Why do you have meet someone to agree with them? That it a completely ridiculous thing to say. This is a not a rare example of private sector investment in Weymouth at at it is another company they are nasty bunch, they have proved it with the car park, they have proved it 3 years ago, and they will prove it again if we let them. Up to you want you believe, but come back at me and I will defend it again and again, and make you and the the company look even worse every single time. Can't wait for your reply.[/p][/quote]But is it the same people who are landlords of the site, or who manage the site, and who manage the car parking of the site? Very often the firm that manages the car parking is a contractor to the person managing or who is the landlord of the site.[/p][/quote]Quite correct ksmain, Parking Eye are a contractor to Brewers Quay LLP, and completely independent to them. You could argue that Brewers Quay LLP should not have used the services of Parking Eye in the first place, but that is a separate issue surely?. I do have contact with some of the Brewers Quay development team, and have always found them to be upstanding, courteous and hardworking people to be honest. I am not willing to get dragged in to another slagging match with Mr. Tom Smith, other to repeat again that I would not like to live next to him. I will however continue to post comments on this website, regardless whether Mr Smith likes it or not, where I feel I can add facts to a debate or to stand up for anyone who is being unfairly maligned. As for Brewers Quay (and i can`t believe I have to repeat myself again), ALL the ground floor retails units (with the exception of the Excise House pub) were owned and operated by Brewers Quay. The only other floor used for retail for the first, and this is where the tenants were situated. Simon N. Simon Nicholas
  • Score: 0

4:06pm Sun 31 Aug 14

breamoreboy says...

shy talk wrote:
The DVLA, which charges £2.50 a time for parking companies to access its database of drivers, will have collected £3.6 million in fees from the parking companies. Nice earner for them to.
How long will it take our politicians to claim £3.6 million on their expenses forms?
[quote][p][bold]shy talk[/bold] wrote: The DVLA, which charges £2.50 a time for parking companies to access its database of drivers, will have collected £3.6 million in fees from the parking companies. Nice earner for them to.[/p][/quote]How long will it take our politicians to claim £3.6 million on their expenses forms? breamoreboy
  • Score: 0

4:08pm Sun 31 Aug 14

breamoreboy says...

Stranger wrote:
JamesYoung wrote:
Stranger wrote:
These companies get the details of the vehicles registered keeper from the DVLA. However, the driver of the vehicle enters into a contract with the parking company when they park there not the keeper. Unlike the road traffic act, as the keeper you are under no legal obligation to tell them who was driving the vehicle on the day it entered into the "contract" and as they cannot prove who it was there is no case to answer. No court will ever uphold an enforcement.

Sorry parking eye... I simply cannot remember who was driving the car last month ;)
This approach is no longer valid - but there are plenty of other arguments to deploy.
You do not have to give then driver details and the contract is with the driver. I can assure you this is still valid and in use at this present time
As I don't know which of you is correct could you please supply an up to date link for the benefit of all, thank you?
[quote][p][bold]Stranger[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stranger[/bold] wrote: These companies get the details of the vehicles registered keeper from the DVLA. However, the driver of the vehicle enters into a contract with the parking company when they park there not the keeper. Unlike the road traffic act, as the keeper you are under no legal obligation to tell them who was driving the vehicle on the day it entered into the "contract" and as they cannot prove who it was there is no case to answer. No court will ever uphold an enforcement. Sorry parking eye... I simply cannot remember who was driving the car last month ;)[/p][/quote]This approach is no longer valid - but there are plenty of other arguments to deploy.[/p][/quote]You do not have to give then driver details and the contract is with the driver. I can assure you this is still valid and in use at this present time[/p][/quote]As I don't know which of you is correct could you please supply an up to date link for the benefit of all, thank you? breamoreboy
  • Score: 0

4:12pm Sun 31 Aug 14

breamoreboy says...

Rod Well wrote:
BTW - pop some aluminium foil over your number plates before entering or leaving the carpark. This puts your car into "stealth" mode which enables unlimited free parking.
You got my vote as I had to chuckle, have you been watching Star Trek again? :)
[quote][p][bold]Rod Well[/bold] wrote: BTW - pop some aluminium foil over your number plates before entering or leaving the carpark. This puts your car into "stealth" mode which enables unlimited free parking.[/p][/quote]You got my vote as I had to chuckle, have you been watching Star Trek again? :) breamoreboy
  • Score: 0

4:20pm Sun 31 Aug 14

breamoreboy says...

MadMicke12 wrote:
Surely if these cameras can see the number plates, they can probably see the faces of the drivers in most cases, subject to sunlight dazzlement. Therefore, in most cases, it should not be hard to identify the driver as opposed to the keeper of the day.

Either way, this company are a load of shysters and should be banned from running any company that is designed to make money in excess of what is reasonable - but there again, what is reasonable.
I have an image of Rita Rabbit taking Rod Well's advice and putting the aluminium foil over her number plates before slipping on her balaclava and patent leather gloves. And if it beats these thieving gits then good!!!
[quote][p][bold]MadMicke12[/bold] wrote: Surely if these cameras can see the number plates, they can probably see the faces of the drivers in most cases, subject to sunlight dazzlement. Therefore, in most cases, it should not be hard to identify the driver as opposed to the keeper of the day. Either way, this company are a load of shysters and should be banned from running any company that is designed to make money in excess of what is reasonable - but there again, what is reasonable.[/p][/quote]I have an image of Rita Rabbit taking Rod Well's advice and putting the aluminium foil over her number plates before slipping on her balaclava and patent leather gloves. And if it beats these thieving gits then good!!! breamoreboy
  • Score: 0

6:54pm Sun 31 Aug 14

ksmain says...

breamoreboy wrote:
Stranger wrote:
JamesYoung wrote:
Stranger wrote:
These companies get the details of the vehicles registered keeper from the DVLA. However, the driver of the vehicle enters into a contract with the parking company when they park there not the keeper. Unlike the road traffic act, as the keeper you are under no legal obligation to tell them who was driving the vehicle on the day it entered into the "contract" and as they cannot prove who it was there is no case to answer. No court will ever uphold an enforcement.

Sorry parking eye... I simply cannot remember who was driving the car last month ;)
This approach is no longer valid - but there are plenty of other arguments to deploy.
You do not have to give then driver details and the contract is with the driver. I can assure you this is still valid and in use at this present time
As I don't know which of you is correct could you please supply an up to date link for the benefit of all, thank you?
I can assure you that from October 2012, in law, private parking operators, if they cannot identify the driver, CAN PURSUE action against the vehicle's keeper who then can identify by getting info from the DVLA. I think it comes in the act 'Protections Of Freedoms Act 2012'.

Private parking operators can ask you for the driver's details - you can refuse to give it - but it will make NO DIFFERENCE as they can continue the action against the vehicle's owner.

Trust me, I know - as the case I mentioned above happened in December 2012 and they pursued my wife for the debt. I then wrote to the landlord and they quashed it within a week - I would recommend doing that because most landlords won' want shoppers not shopping at their premises because they are fed up with the actions of their contracted car parking firm.
[quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stranger[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stranger[/bold] wrote: These companies get the details of the vehicles registered keeper from the DVLA. However, the driver of the vehicle enters into a contract with the parking company when they park there not the keeper. Unlike the road traffic act, as the keeper you are under no legal obligation to tell them who was driving the vehicle on the day it entered into the "contract" and as they cannot prove who it was there is no case to answer. No court will ever uphold an enforcement. Sorry parking eye... I simply cannot remember who was driving the car last month ;)[/p][/quote]This approach is no longer valid - but there are plenty of other arguments to deploy.[/p][/quote]You do not have to give then driver details and the contract is with the driver. I can assure you this is still valid and in use at this present time[/p][/quote]As I don't know which of you is correct could you please supply an up to date link for the benefit of all, thank you?[/p][/quote]I can assure you that from October 2012, in law, private parking operators, if they cannot identify the driver, CAN PURSUE action against the vehicle's keeper who then can identify by getting info from the DVLA. I think it comes in the act 'Protections Of Freedoms Act 2012'. Private parking operators can ask you for the driver's details - you can refuse to give it - but it will make NO DIFFERENCE as they can continue the action against the vehicle's owner. Trust me, I know - as the case I mentioned above happened in December 2012 and they pursued my wife for the debt. I then wrote to the landlord and they quashed it within a week - I would recommend doing that because most landlords won' want shoppers not shopping at their premises because they are fed up with the actions of their contracted car parking firm. ksmain
  • Score: 0

4:59am Tue 16 Sep 14

EtaoinShrdlu says...

This seems to have provided an outlet for the many "experts" out there. The country is full of them. This parking outfit will be run by old school mates of Cameron, spin doctors and **** artists who don't actually want to do anything approaching work for a living. The solution (if you excuse the pun). Wear a hoodie, go there in darkness, squirt a tube of super glue into the slots for cash and cards. Squirt some on some coins and poke them in. Squirt some more on a card (not traceable to you) and shove it in. Wear rubber gloves of course. And, like the instructions on almost everything, "repeat as necessary". Like when the machine has been repaired. After some horrendous bills for repairs (from a company with similar pricing strategies to theirs, with luck) they may revert to the 20th century and employ a man with a book of tickets and some modicum of common sense.
This seems to have provided an outlet for the many "experts" out there. The country is full of them. This parking outfit will be run by old school mates of Cameron, spin doctors and **** artists who don't actually want to do anything approaching work for a living. The solution (if you excuse the pun). Wear a hoodie, go there in darkness, squirt a tube of super glue into the slots for cash and cards. Squirt some on some coins and poke them in. Squirt some more on a card (not traceable to you) and shove it in. Wear rubber gloves of course. And, like the instructions on almost everything, "repeat as necessary". Like when the machine has been repaired. After some horrendous bills for repairs (from a company with similar pricing strategies to theirs, with luck) they may revert to the 20th century and employ a man with a book of tickets and some modicum of common sense. EtaoinShrdlu
  • Score: 0

1:49pm Wed 17 Sep 14

Mrs Blackburn says...

I am a 67 yr old lady and am in dispute re paying fine I haven't used one of these machines before got myself in a tizzie and inadvertently put the number for 1st half of present car and the letters of previous car I owned, I was in car par for 29 minutes and paid the £1.20 fee and surely common sense would prevail when checking and they would see it was an error and no one was trying to fiddle, also there was only about 7 cars in there so wouldn't be that difficult to check. I had a terrible shock when I got the letter and am awaiting the outcome of the appeal . I cannot afford to pay that amount of money being a pensioner and on ltd money.
I am a 67 yr old lady and am in dispute re paying fine I haven't used one of these machines before got myself in a tizzie and inadvertently put the number for 1st half of present car and the letters of previous car I owned, I was in car par for 29 minutes and paid the £1.20 fee and surely common sense would prevail when checking and they would see it was an error and no one was trying to fiddle, also there was only about 7 cars in there so wouldn't be that difficult to check. I had a terrible shock when I got the letter and am awaiting the outcome of the appeal . I cannot afford to pay that amount of money being a pensioner and on ltd money. Mrs Blackburn
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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