Another Parking Eye - but with a twist!

[whattodo?]

Another Parking Eye - but with a twist!

Hi all!

Firstly I am aware that there are posts of a similar nature up here but just want to get a personal response as my situation is slightly different and I may be able to clear it up sooner rather than going through the months of *bum twitching* while the letters roll in!

Ok so, same old story first -

• I entered the car park of a Retail Shopping Park at a certain time - (didn't notice any signs but I am sure they are there)
• The main large area of the Retail Park was closed due to the out of hours time but the Fast Food car park on the same retail park premises was open so I parked there.
• I left the car park at another certain time.

SO...

• Use of this car park is 3 hours free parking. (I have checked this on the retail park website to confirm) and i was there for 5 hours.

Here is the interesting part - I was actually working within the retail park! - Not at the fast food chain but doing my first shift for a stock auditing company within one of the larger stores which was closed and out of store hours.
The fast food chain is 24/7 but the car park was as silent when I left as it was when I entered and the PCN is for the retail park in general and NOT the fast food car park which is within the retail park.

And again SO....

I imagine the feedback will be to ignore them - that seems to be the general view on all PCNs issued by this company. HOWEVER! Is it worth contacting the retail park and the store which I was working within? If i was providing a service within their premises and it was my first shift and knew nothing different than being able to park on the premises then maybe they will advise ParkingEye to revoke the PCN and ease my worries from the outset!? - I don't really wish to get the new employers involved so IF it may be possible to get this sorted through the retail park i'll be giving that a go!

Any views and responses welcome!

Thank you muchly!

[leclerc]

Re: Another Parking Eye - but with a twist!

Ignore Parking Eye but worth asking the store whether they have staff parking if you still have to work there due to the notices about the 3 hour time limit.

[whattodo?]

Re: Another Parking Eye - but with a twist!

Hi leclerc

Thanks for your input. Yeah, will have to do ask this for every store I audit from now on!

cheers again!

[labman]

Re: Another Parking Eye - but with a twist!

I'd appeal it on the grounds that it is a free car park, so they have suffered no consequential loss. Also you were there as an employee of a store, working out of hours so you knew the car park would be empty. If they refuse, appeal it to POPLA (it then costs the PPC £27 + VAT) and then ignore it.

[leclerc]

Re: Another Parking Eye - but with a twist!

I'd appeal it on the grounds that it is a free car park, so they have suffered no consequential loss. Also you were there as an employee of a store, working out of hours so you knew the car park would be empty. If they refuse, appeal it to POPLA (it then costs the PPC £27 + VAT) and then ignore it.

Why acknowledge the ticket at all? Why waste time and energy? Last thing you want to do is to actually think that you care cos that will lead to even more letters. I would not appeal, I would not correspond, I would burn it in my fire(if I had one that is). The OP will get two more letters and then that will eat, job done

[labman]

Re: Another Parking Eye - but with a twist!

Why acknowledge the ticket at all? Why waste time and energy? Last thing you want to do is to actually think that you care cos that will lead to even more letters. I would not appeal, I would not correspond, I would burn it in my fire(if I had one that is). The OP will get two more letters and then that will eat, job done

Hi Leclerc,

It's the 'normal' advice now that all sites are encouraging people to pursue. The idea is that if we can get enough people appealing, then the not only will the system struggle to cope, but at £27 + VAT a time, it is going to hit the PPC's in their pockets, and inhibit cashflow as all invoices for appeals must be paid in full within 30 days. They're going to be forking out a vast amount of money each month if even only 30% of ignored tickets are appealed.

It costs the 'offender' a stamp, they still ignore afterwards, so nothing changes except it hits the PPC in their pockets. It shows you know where you stand and are pulling one over them rather than that you care about the ticket - you don't as you continue to ignore that.

[leclerc]

Re: Another Parking Eye - but with a twist!

Hi Leclerc,

It's the 'normal' advice now that all sites are encouraging people to pursue. The idea is that if we can get enough people appealing, then the not only will the system struggle to cope, but at £27 + VAT a time, it is going to hit the PPC's in their pockets, and inhibit cashflow as all invoices for appeals must be paid in full within 30 days. They're going to be forking out a vast amount of money each month if even only 30% of ignored tickets are appealed.

It costs the 'offender' a stamp, they still ignore afterwards, so nothing changes except it hits the PPC in their pockets. It shows you know where you stand and are pulling one over them rather than that you care about the ticket - you don't as you continue to ignore that.

I disagree with that advice that is being given as it is in my opinion it is pointless advice. Who is paying for the stamp to appeal? Are we helping the post office as well?

[labman]

Re: Another Parking Eye - but with a twist!

You are entitled to your opinion. It's the advice which has been discussed in the relevant working group and agreed on as the site approach. It is also becoming the approach of the specialist sites, as rolling over and accepting the way these groups work is not an acceptable option. We need to take the fight back to them.

Not much more I can say really - the stickies are due to be updated soon to reflect this advice.

[leclerc]

Re: Another Parking Eye - but with a twist!

You are entitled to your opinion. It's the advice which has been discussed in the relevant working group and agreed on as the site approach. It is also becoming the approach of the specialist sites, as rolling over and accepting the way these groups work is not an acceptable option. We need to take the fight back to them.

Not much more I can say really - the stickies are due to be updated soon to reflect this advice.

I appear to be not in any working group but I do think the advice is a load of billhooks to be honest, so I guess that's another type of thread I won't bother looking at anymore.

[labman]

Re: Another Parking Eye - but with a twist!

I appear to be not in any working group but I do think the advice is a load of billhooks to be honest, so I guess that's another type of thread I won't bother looking at anymore.

I don't know about you and working groups obviously. I'd actually encourage you to become more active rather than turn your back and walk away, as you'll get a better understanding of the issues and the bigger picture here. As an ex banker, you'll know the difference between microeconomics and macroeconomics. On the micro picture here I would agree with you 100%. On the macro picture I think the appeal and then ignore is a better way forward.

[leclerc]

Re: Another Parking Eye - but with a twist!

I don't know about you and working groups obviously. I'd actually encourage you to become more active rather than turn your back and walk away, as you'll get a better understanding of the issues and the bigger picture here. As an ex banker, you'll know the difference between microeconomics and macroeconomics. On the micro picture here I would agree with you 100%. On the macro picture I think the appeal and then ignore is a better way forward.

What I know: 2 people I know got letters from parking eye. I said ignore them and they will go away. They went away. That's the advice I use cos if it is not broken, I am damned if I am going to fix it, lol!!!

The people I knew who had it read about threats of bailiffs, etc, and were scared so therefore even acknowledging the fact that they sent it was not something I wanted to recommend then and is not something I would recommend today or tomorrow. Obviously, others want different things and if the site advocates doing that then clearly, I cannot post or should not post in contravention to how this forum views that type of stuff. However, if I am personally asked away from the forum then my advice is IGNORE IGNORE IGNORE.

[ploddertom]

Re: Another Parking Eye - but with a twist!

If enough folks took the time to appeal then eventually the system gets overloaded, the PPC won't like forking out say 300 x £27 +VAT every 30 days in the knowledge that 290 are then going to ignore anyway.

[labman]

Re: Another Parking Eye - but with a twist!

What I know: 2 people I know got letters from parking eye. I said ignore them and they will go away. They went away. That's the advice I use cos if it is not broken, I am damned if I am going to fix it, lol!!!

The people I knew who had it read about threats of bailiffs, etc, and were scared so therefore even acknowledging the fact that they sent it was not something I wanted to recommend then and is not something I would recommend today or tomorrow. Obviously, others want different things and if the site advocates doing that then clearly, I cannot post or should not post in contravention to how this forum views that type of stuff. However, if I am personally asked away from the forum then my advice is IGNORE IGNORE IGNORE.

I don't know where they saw mad advice about bailiffs etc... It certainly wasn't here (I hope!!!!) lol

We're not really changing your advice. Yours works and it was the site line until last week. You keep advising that if you wish - it works. BUT, appealing and then ignoring does too, but hits the PPC's in their pockets, quite hard. If the appeal is rejected (as is likely), then the OP simply ignores as before - nothing has changed except, the OP has invested 60p on a stamp in order to cost the PPC £32.40 which they have to pay someone to process, transfer monies etc... so the true cost to the PPC will be higher again. Get enough of these and a few smaller PPC's will be out of business fairly quickly. That's why we're taking this line.

If you're not happy with that, continue to advise ignore - it achieves the same micro result for the OP and saves them 60p, but no macro result as well. :beagle:

[CleverClogs]

Re: Another Parking Eye - but with a twist!

It's the 'normal' advice now that all sites are encouraging people to pursue. The idea is that if we can get enough people appealing, then the not only will the system struggle to cope, but at £27 + VAT a time, it is going to hit the PPC's in their pockets, and inhibit cashflow as all invoices for appeals must be paid in full within 30 days. They're going to be forking out a vast amount of money each month if even only 30% of ignored tickets are appealed.

But what we really want is a similar - but more expensive - "appeals procedure" for those jerks at RLP. :rofl:

Who is paying for the stamp to appeal? Are we helping the post office as well?

Someone has to.

[bluebottle]

Re: Another Parking Eye - but with a twist!

But what we really want is a similar - but more expensive - "appeals procedure" for those jerks at RLP. :rofl:


Someone has to.

I am of the opinion, CC, that RLP will be the architect of its own demise, along with Cireco.