Tweet
First time poster, please go easy on me. ☺️
Brief synopsis...Mrs Rory gets parking eye PCN (received beyond the 14 days by a few weeks) but I think they're going down the contractual line rather that the POFA route? I've read elsewhere that they can ignore the 14 days issue? Apologies if I've misunderstood this situation.
The parking breach I understand may have arisen due to the car park in question changing their tariffs. So the £2 for 4 hours became £2.50 for 4 hours, and £2 was paid in the belief that it still provided 4 hours. The ANPR clocked the car leaving after 4 hours. The driver didn't see the new charges as it's a car park frequently used by this car in its day to day business.
So an appeal went to Parking eye, in very general terms covering most of the common points I've read about. At the time, probably out of mistrust of such companies we didn't plead to their better nature and ask for leniency and understanding. It was stated we didn't know who the driver was; we asked for the landowner's details so we may communicate directly; we asked for the details of the contract and who Parking Eye were acting on behalf of, we stated the charges were not proportionate and were exorbitant. We also stated that the PCN had been issued beyond the 14 days, but I don't think that is an issue we can make having read other threads.
Parking Eye declined the appeal and said it's needing paying. Their first response said our representation to re-issue the Parking Charge was rejected and they were unable to re-issue the charge. They asked me for the full name and address of the driver. We didn't respond and after the 28 day period expired they've written to provide us with the POPLA code.
I've a couple of issues in drafting the POPLA appeal; will they get to read the appeal letter we sent to Parking Eye?
OR do they make their decision based purely on what is said in the appeal and a view on supporting information. My point here is we didn't stipulate the issue over the increase in tariff when we appealed, assuming they'd play a straight bat and point us in the direction of the new signage which the driver had missed.
Parking eye didn't provide the landowner's details as requested, nor the details of the contract. They said, "The parking Charges issued for, and on behalf of the landowner are levied on the basis of a contract with the motorist, set out via signage at the site. The signage details the conditions under which a motorist is authorised to park, be that by payment of the appropriate paid parking tariff or by parking within a limited stay period or similar, and that a parking charge will be payable, if the terms and conditions are breached."
The car park is monitored by ANPR and the PCN was received by post following their systems seeing the car had stayed for 4 hours but had paid the amount allowing it to stay only for 2 under the new prices.....
Any ideas?
Brief synopsis...Mrs Rory gets parking eye PCN (received beyond the 14 days by a few weeks) but I think they're going down the contractual line rather that the POFA route? I've read elsewhere that they can ignore the 14 days issue? Apologies if I've misunderstood this situation.
The parking breach I understand may have arisen due to the car park in question changing their tariffs. So the £2 for 4 hours became £2.50 for 4 hours, and £2 was paid in the belief that it still provided 4 hours. The ANPR clocked the car leaving after 4 hours. The driver didn't see the new charges as it's a car park frequently used by this car in its day to day business.
So an appeal went to Parking eye, in very general terms covering most of the common points I've read about. At the time, probably out of mistrust of such companies we didn't plead to their better nature and ask for leniency and understanding. It was stated we didn't know who the driver was; we asked for the landowner's details so we may communicate directly; we asked for the details of the contract and who Parking Eye were acting on behalf of, we stated the charges were not proportionate and were exorbitant. We also stated that the PCN had been issued beyond the 14 days, but I don't think that is an issue we can make having read other threads.
Parking Eye declined the appeal and said it's needing paying. Their first response said our representation to re-issue the Parking Charge was rejected and they were unable to re-issue the charge. They asked me for the full name and address of the driver. We didn't respond and after the 28 day period expired they've written to provide us with the POPLA code.
I've a couple of issues in drafting the POPLA appeal; will they get to read the appeal letter we sent to Parking Eye?
OR do they make their decision based purely on what is said in the appeal and a view on supporting information. My point here is we didn't stipulate the issue over the increase in tariff when we appealed, assuming they'd play a straight bat and point us in the direction of the new signage which the driver had missed.
Parking eye didn't provide the landowner's details as requested, nor the details of the contract. They said, "The parking Charges issued for, and on behalf of the landowner are levied on the basis of a contract with the motorist, set out via signage at the site. The signage details the conditions under which a motorist is authorised to park, be that by payment of the appropriate paid parking tariff or by parking within a limited stay period or similar, and that a parking charge will be payable, if the terms and conditions are breached."
The car park is monitored by ANPR and the PCN was received by post following their systems seeing the car had stayed for 4 hours but had paid the amount allowing it to stay only for 2 under the new prices.....
Any ideas?
Comment