Parking Eye

[mystery1]

Re: Parking Eye

Could throw it in at popla but it's not that big a deal. Certainly for a parking eye appeal you'll be lucky if they read it anyway.

M1

[robbhp]

Re: Parking Eye

I take it that would be with correspondence with the land / property owners first and then question parking eye about the wording or would the recommendation be to direct the question direct to parking eye in the opening appeal letter ?

[bluebottle]

Re: Parking Eye

Also, find out who is responsible for that blue sign. As stated above, its wording could be argued to be deceptive and/or misleading, which could undermine any case Parking Eye may think they have.

[robbhp]

Re: Parking Eye

In your opinion am i standing on firm ground so to speak, to argue the point ?

[mystery1]

Re: Parking Eye

You could try. I fancy they'll send you a popla code in any event.

M1

[robbhp]

Re: Parking Eye

Thank very much I will follow your advice.

I do have a parking ticket for the following week in which full payment was credited by the machine, should this also be included or would I be wasting my time ?

[bluebottle]

Re: Parking Eye

The blue sign could be deemed deceptive and/or misleading. It could be argued that the use of the word "Public" could quite easily give the impression that it was a public car park, as in that it was owned/operated by a local authority. It needs to be established who erected and owns that blue sign. Whatever way you look at it, Parking Eye and/or the landowner could be in the proverbial over that sign.

[mystery1]

Re: Parking Eye

I would send in an appeal to parking eye.

Dear Sirs,

I received a parking charge notice, as registered keeper, on the 15th July for a parking event you say happened on June 21/06/13. I note from research in to this matter that, as registered keeper, when no notice to driver was attached to the vehicle at the time, as ANPR would indicate, then the registered must receive a notice to keeper within 14 days. This has not happened.

More concerning though is the fact the driver has the parking ticket for this date and having paid £3.20 for 14 hours parking is dismayed to find that only £3 is registered on the ticket. The driver is a regular user of the car park and would not pay £3 if trying to evade payment as the two top charges are either £3.20 or £2.20.

The charges you are attempting to enforce are clearly penalties. OB Services v Thurlow will show you that these penalties are not enforceable.

I ask you to cancel this charge forthwith mainly because the charge was paid but also because you have failed to comply with the law and the cost of a popla hearing isn't worth it to you as you will lose. Should you disagree please give me a popla code.

XXX

Something like that. Attach the ticket. Amend any posts above to hide the identity of the driver at this time.

M1

[robbhp]

Re: Parking Eye

Really could do with knowing how to respond and appeal as I don't want to leave this alone I would prefer to be in contact with them and trying to resolve the issue instead just ignoring it.

[robbhp]

Re: Parking Eye

No I don't although I have used their car park for a good 4 years.

[mystery1]

Re: Parking Eye

Do you use the bingo or casino ?

M1

[robbhp]

Re: Parking Eye

Yes I can confirm this is the only correspondence I have had.

[mystery1]

Re: Parking Eye

Curious. Is that letter the first thing you heard ? It's a reminder and says that the original was sent 26/6 ?

M1

[robbhp]

Re: Parking Eye

Thank you for your help thus far i have been to the site today to take some pictures which may or may not help you may see something i am missing and i have also taken pictures of the parking charge which arrived in the post the post yesterday, also of the purchased parking tickets. i also have pictures of the parking meter with the tariff times indicated on it.

[bluebottle]

Re: Parking Eye

Sorry i think i may have misunderstood your question, the ANPR arrival and departure time are more than likely accurate from my recollection.

Don't rely on ANPR evidence. It can be easily manipulated to suit a PPC's end. Putting them on strict proof would probably make PE crap themselves.