Parking Eye Motorway Fun

[tfloss]

Hi folks, needless to say, title says it all. ANPR picked up the driver of my vehicle going into a Welcome Break Service Station. Due to unforeseen circumstances, the driver was held up there (sickness) for 2hrs 32mins. This attracted a charge dated 28/08 for the £100, pay now for £60 etc etc. Problem is, it's only just arrived having gone to an old address for some reason? The owner of the vehicle in question moved some months ago but due to a confusion with number plate registration from the car dealer and a subsequent swap, the address change appears to have only recently gone through at the DVLA (although the V5 managed to make it through before PE did?)

I believe the current SP is to appeal to PE for your POPLA reference and then ask nicely for POPLA to scrap it? I have no proof of illness and reason for delay, they have the wrong address and I'm not fussed about updating them, plus reasonable costs for overstaying do not equate to £100. I have some limited legal experience and this as far as I can tell is a civil case anyway. I would gladly stand in court and make an offer save costs, i.e. about £15.

Current process from those 'in the know' please?

[mystery1]

Re: Parking Eye Motorway Fun

Sickness means bugger all.

Appeal to parking eye - reply "piss off" - go to popla with a decent appeal such as here and win.

It is believed that about 61% of appeals are winning at popla but that's because some people would appeal based on mitigation which does not work. Informed appeals win with near certainty.

M1

[tfloss]

Re: Parking Eye Motorway Fun

I thought as much. I will tell PE to roll it up and deliver a similar note to the above based on the small print as opposed to an illness. Do I advise they have the wrong address?

[mystery1]

Re: Parking Eye Motorway Fun

Don't see why not as it can only help them be sneaky.

Don't use "i" etc as i suspect they are chasing the registered keeper so "the driver" did etc

M1

[ostell]

Re: Parking Eye Motorway Fun

Did they fail to contact you within 14 days? (tongue in cheek) Is that not an automatic fail?

[mystery1]

Re: Parking Eye Motorway Fun

Did they fail to contact you within 14 days? (tongue in cheek) Is that not an automatic fail?

No. http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/keeper-liability/

M1

[ostell]

Re: Parking Eye Motorway Fun

If it's a notice to keeper without initial Notice to Driver then the 14 days does apply. The OP suggest that there was a delay in receiving the NTK.

[mystery1]

Re: Parking Eye Motorway Fun

The 14 days does not start until the day after the event. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...-4-paragraph-9

(5)

The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.




There is also the fact that we don't know if the old address was actually the registered keepers current address with DVLA.

M1

[tfloss]

Re: Parking Eye Motorway Fun

Quick update - sent PE a letter as advised (from parking cowboys I or wherever the reference point was) and they've simply re-issued their invoice to my new address.

Send letter again? Refer back to original letter?

Cheers

[mystery1]

Re: Parking Eye Motorway Fun

Does this letter offer the chance to appeal ? If so just do it for the sake of making it easier.

Dear Sirs,

I wish to use your appeals process. There was a medical emergency that caused an over run of time. In the event you do not care about this then i would further appeal that the charge is an unlawful penalty and not a genuine pre estimate of loss.

Yours etc

M1

[tfloss]

Re: Parking Eye Motorway Fun

Yep it's just their standard bill basically. If you want to appeal...ya-de-ya...

I'll give it a whirl. Either way, it ain't being paid.

Thanks for the note, appreciated.

[tfloss]

Re: Parking Eye Motorway Fun

Hi, I eventually appealed to Popla on the basis it wasn't a true estimate of loss - my appeal hearing was yesterday and I won, text below for info. Don't pay them, do go through the process, it only adds to their costs....

The Operator’s case is that the Appellant breached the car parking conditions by either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than the permitted free stay or purchased parking time.


The Appellant made representations stating his case. The Appellant raised a number of points and one of them was if the amount charged is a genuine loss? The Appellant states that under the Unfair Terms Consumer Contracts Regulation 1999 the charge has to be considered as a realistic loss to the landowner.
The signage produced states that a parking charge notice would be issued for a “failure to comply” with the car park terms and conditions. This wording seems to indicate that the charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract. Accordingly, the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The Operator has submitted that its charges are in line with the BPA Code of Practice. The BPA code states that Operators must justify in advance any parking charge over £100. However, it does not automatically follow that any charge which is £100 or under is, therefore, justified. Where the issue is raised by the Appellant, it is for the Operator to address it.


The Operator has submitted that its charges have been held to be enforceable in previous cases. However, the Operator has not produced any evidence to justify this parking charge. The losses suffered by breaches of a parking contract may vary depending on the nature of the car park, and the nature of the breach. That a parking charge at a certain level is held not to be a penalty in one car park, does not mean that the same sum is a pre- estimate of the loss caused in every car park.


The Operator must show that the charge sought is a genuine estimate of the potential loss caused by the parking breach. A substantial number of the costs listed by the Operator appear to be general business costs, and not losses incurred, or losses that might reasonably be incurred, by the Appellant’s breach. A genuine pre-estimate of loss should represent a loss and not a profit. It cannot include the Operator’s business overheads.

The Operator has submitted that the parking charge is enforceable as there is a strong commercial justification for the charge. It would appear that the courts have accepted commercial justification for a parking charge where the Operator has substantiated the loss incurred, or the loss that might reasonably be incurred, by the breach. However, the Operator cannot submit that costs which in reality amount to the general business costs incurred for the provision of their car park management services, are commercially justifiable.


The onus is on the Operator to prove its case on the balance of probabilities. In this case, the Operator has not provided sufficient evidence to prove that this charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

[maxdipat17]

Re: Parking Eye Motorway Fun

I appealed and they made it unsuccessful, then I appealed to POPLA and I won and saved £100.


I won on the basis that their losses did not justify their charge of the £100......fight fight fight but your reasons have to be right.....read the POPLA site thoroughly. POPLA are great. A light of reason in the darkened and greedy world of parking.... Gud luck. :-).


A proud fighter...