Tweet
Hi,
I arrived to this forum because I found a similar case on the forum and discovered that my case is far from being special.
On the 16th November 2019 the driver of the car of which I am the keeper parked the vehicle at the Westgate department store in St Neots. The driver paid and entered the registration number in the ticket machine. Then on the 22nd November I received a parking charge notice (dated issued 20th November) from ParkingEye asking for an amount of £100 (£60 if paid within 14 days) simply stating the time stayed in the car park, over 2 1/2 hours (time calculated between the pictures taken of the vehicle entering and exiting the car park). The PCN didn't even claim that no ticket for that registration hadn't been purchased. Luckily the driver purchased 2 hours, kept the ticket and still has it! He was however 19 minutes over stayed (time calculated between expiring time of the ticket and the exit picture time). Some of that time (+/- 5 minutes he expend trying to find a sign, a machine or a way explaining how to pay for the 14 minutes overtime that he had when he intended to leave) He found that there was not such an option provided by the parking and left.
I have since then discovered that there have been ongoing problems with parking at this St Neots shop and many people had been sent erroneous parking charges (https://legalbeagles.info/forums/for...tannia-parking) Since I know and can prove that the driver paid to park it is unthinkable for me to pay a fine that is a complete unwarranted and totally disproportionated to any potential "loss" incurred by the company.
I believe this modus operandi is common by the local car park companies for what I saw in the above mentioned forum link. It seems that after many complains and in order to test the situation the Mayor of St Neots parked in the car park and was sent a PCN. He had of course retained his ticket.
I hope someone can advise not only on my particular case but also on how to best make use of this case to tackle this common abusive behaviour that has apparently become standard practice.
Many thanks
I arrived to this forum because I found a similar case on the forum and discovered that my case is far from being special.
On the 16th November 2019 the driver of the car of which I am the keeper parked the vehicle at the Westgate department store in St Neots. The driver paid and entered the registration number in the ticket machine. Then on the 22nd November I received a parking charge notice (dated issued 20th November) from ParkingEye asking for an amount of £100 (£60 if paid within 14 days) simply stating the time stayed in the car park, over 2 1/2 hours (time calculated between the pictures taken of the vehicle entering and exiting the car park). The PCN didn't even claim that no ticket for that registration hadn't been purchased. Luckily the driver purchased 2 hours, kept the ticket and still has it! He was however 19 minutes over stayed (time calculated between expiring time of the ticket and the exit picture time). Some of that time (+/- 5 minutes he expend trying to find a sign, a machine or a way explaining how to pay for the 14 minutes overtime that he had when he intended to leave) He found that there was not such an option provided by the parking and left.
I have since then discovered that there have been ongoing problems with parking at this St Neots shop and many people had been sent erroneous parking charges (https://legalbeagles.info/forums/for...tannia-parking) Since I know and can prove that the driver paid to park it is unthinkable for me to pay a fine that is a complete unwarranted and totally disproportionated to any potential "loss" incurred by the company.
I believe this modus operandi is common by the local car park companies for what I saw in the above mentioned forum link. It seems that after many complains and in order to test the situation the Mayor of St Neots parked in the car park and was sent a PCN. He had of course retained his ticket.
I hope someone can advise not only on my particular case but also on how to best make use of this case to tackle this common abusive behaviour that has apparently become standard practice.
Many thanks
