Parking Eye charge notice

[SV007]

Firstly how does parking eye obtain the address of the registered owner , I work in Commercial Insurance , I can tell if a vehicle is insured MID but no other details . Secondly are these fines not apparently an invoice , thirdly if the registered owner refuses to pay then the only way Parking eye is to secure payment is through court proceedings, fourth thing in my case i have moved address since the date of the alleged offence but as yet not up dated DVLA. any comments would be appreciated I have no respect what so ever to retailers who effectively allow these parasites to manage car parking , i suppose a judge would say well you should have notified DVLA of the address change , my reply I didnt your honour because i had four temporary addresses before a permanent house move , i didnt drive after X date - basically some feedback would be useful got to play these gangsters are there own game

[charitynjw]

Firstly how does parking eye obtain the address of the registered owner
They don't.
It is the registered keeper's details which are disclosed by the DVLA.
I work in Commercial Insurance , I can tell if a vehicle is insured MID but no other details .
Secondly are these fines not apparently an invoice ,
They are invoices.
thirdly if the registered owner (no, keeper) refuses to pay then the only way Parking eye is to secure payment is through court proceedings,
fourth thing in my case i have moved address since the date of the alleged offence but as yet not up dated DVLA.
You are obliged to immediately inform the DVLA seperately to update a driving licence & the V5C.
any comments would be appreciated I have no respect what so ever to retailers who effectively allow these parasites to manage car parking , i suppose a judge would say well you should have notified DVLA of the address change , my reply I didnt your honour because i had four temporary addresses before a permanent house move , i didnt drive after X date - basically some feedback would be useful got to play these gangsters are there own game

Every case turns on it's own facts.
Have you started your own thread?

[tesla6518]

Ostell. have you seen the terms on the sign in the group of three pictures, it clearly states that the Full and correct registration number must be inserted at the terminal at reception to gain the 2.5hr free parking. The only question is "where the sign is in relation to the entrance of PureGym" a simply plan of the carpark level, gym entrance and position son parked would be helpful.

With regards to Parking Eye not having a contract with PureGym, this could be correct as it seem it is a shared car park,. It is more likely that Premier Inn have the contract with Parking Eye and some deal has been struck between the parties. The trouble is Parking Eye contracts normally consist of them supplying and maintaining all the equipment, CCTV, signage, terminals etc, for this they keep all of the money from any charges for breach of terms. The company employing them pays no fees, so Parking eye have to aggressively chase charges (if everyone parked within the terms ParkingEye would end up bankrupt)

[charitynjw]

Ostell. have you seen the terms on the sign in the group of three pictures, it clearly states that the Full and correct registration number must be inserted at the terminal at reception to gain the 2.5hr free parking. The only question is "where the sign is in relation to the entrance of PureGym" a simply plan of the carpark level, gym entrance and position son parked would be helpful.

With regards to Parking Eye not having a contract with PureGym, this could be correct as it seem it is a shared car park,. It is more likely that Premier Inn have the contract with Parking Eye and some deal has been struck between the parties. The trouble is Parking Eye contracts normally consist of them supplying and maintaining all the equipment, CCTV, signage, terminals etc, for this they keep all of the money from any charges for breach of terms. The company employing them pays no fees, so Parking eye have to aggressively chase charges (if everyone parked within the terms ParkingEye would end up bankrupt)

You are responding to a thread which is over 4 years old.
Much may be changed in the interim.

[tesla6518]

Thanks. misread the dates. nothing like testing the keyboard in vain

[tesla6518]

May be of some help. direct from POPLA website Keying error [Scenario 2]

PUBLISHED ON: 12TH MAY 2021
Overview

The parking operator issued the parking charge notice because the motorist parked without entering their registration details via an in-store terminal, when using a customer only car park.

Motorist’s case

The motorist explained that they were a legitimate user of the car park who was shopping in the relevant store. They also said they did enter their vehicle registration details into the terminal.

Evidence

The motorist provided evidence of purchases to demonstrate they were a customer of the store.

The operator provided Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) camera photographs showing the motorist’s car entering and exiting the car park.

The operator provided copies of the signs at the car park confirming a requirement for customers to enter a full and correct vehicle registration into the terminal to quality for 1 ½ hours of free parking.

And they provided the results of a search for the motorist’s vehicle registration details on a system that records all registrations entered on the day. The list of registration numbers did not include the appellant’s car.

Analysis

Neither party disputes that the motorist parked on the day in question. The appeal is based around the motorist’s claim that they were a legitimate customer and they did enter their registration into the on-site terminal.

There was no log of the motorist’s registration on a search of the operator’s systems. But the motorist has provided receipts showing they were a legitimate car park user who made purchases in store. One conclusion that might be drawn from this evidence is that the motorist may have keyed their registration incorrectly at the terminal.

Section 17 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice covers the steps a parking operator should take when a keying error occurs. If there has been a minor keying error, for example one digit entered incorrectly, the parking operator is expected to have identified this before issuing a parking charge notice. If they failed to do this, they are expected to cancel the parking charge notice when the motorist appeals.

In situations where a major keying error has occurred, for example the motorist entered an entirely different registration, the parking operator is not expected to have identified this before issuing a parking charge notice. But it is expected that such errors are dealt with appropriately at the first appeal stage, especially if it can be proven that the motorist has paid for the parking event, that the motorist attempted to enter their vehicle registration mark, or they were a legitimate user of the car park (e.g. a customer).

The Code of Practice recognises that an operator will have incurred charges in issuing a parking charge notice if a motorist has made a major keying error, and permits that they can they seek to recover these by way of applying a modest charge of no more that £20 to the motorist.

In this instance, the motorist had provided evidence of their store receipt to the operator to show they were a customer and therefore a legitimate user of the car park. The parking operator evidence showed that they searched for the motorist’s vehicle registration but did not show that any attempt to identify if there had been a keying error.

As the motorist demonstrated they were a legitimate user of the car park who claimed to have interacted with the keypad, we would have expected the operator to establish whether this was a minor keying error, in which case they should have cancelled the parking charge; or a major keying error, in which case they should have reduced the amount to a maximum of £20. The operator did neither.

Outcome

POPLA allowed the appeal and required the parking operator to cancel the parking charge notice because it was evident that the parking operator had failed to follow the keying error expectations in the British Parking Association Code of Practice.
be this will be of help, From POPLA website