IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.

Parking Eye charge at Kingston Park, Newcastle

First post, so please be gentle!

Ok, so got through the post what appears to be a typical letter from Parking Eye stating that we'd overstayed our welcome by 14 mins, along with photos and timestamps. Their dates are all within the time limits. Having read over these and other forums it appears the best first step is to initially reject the charge and ask to get a POPLA reference. So, with that in mind, I've taken some examples from other threads and cobbled together the letter below in the hope they just drop the charge. Could any of you helpful folk comment on whether it's got enough or too much info in it?


Dear Parking Eye,

In reference to the speculative invoice received xxxxxx dated xxxxxx, the keeper denies all liability to your company as:

  • It is an unlawful punitive charge, thus a penalty.
  • The driver waited over 15 minutes before finding a parking space and was therefore not parked for the specified time.
  • The fee is disproportionate and far exceeds the cost to the land owner.
  • The car park was around two thirds empty at time of departure so the driver was not preventing anyone else from using the car park.
If you reject this challenge the keeper requires within 35 days a POPLA verification code for them to appeal independently, per Version 3 of the BPA Code of Practice.

The keeper has nothing further to add, and will not respond to any correspondence from your company unless it contains the POPLA code. Furthermore, the keeper is fully aware that you must pay £27+Vat for this.

The challenge will be deemed accepted if there is no POPLA code on any rejection that you supply within the time-frame stipulated above.

Yours Faithfully...
«13

Comments

  • bazster
    bazster Posts: 7,436
    Combo Breaker First Post
    Forumite
    I would remove your third and fourth bullets as they seem to imply your acceptance that there might have been some cost to the landowner, which there was not.

    To be honest, I'd delete all your bullets except the first one. I like your second one, but I'd save it for POPLA.

    The logic in the final paragraph doesn't add up. You just want something like this:

    The challenge will be deemed accepted if a POPLA code is not received within the time-frame stipulated above.
    Je suis Charlie.
  • Guys_Dad
    Guys_Dad Posts: 11,025
    First Post Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    gwarpig wrote: »
    First post, so please be gentle!

    Ok, so got through the post what appears to be a typical letter from Parking Eye stating that we'd overstayed our welcome by 14 mins, along with photos and timestamps. Their dates are all within the time limits. Having read over these and other forums it appears the best first step is to initially reject the charge and ask to get a POPLA reference. So, with that in mind, I've taken some examples from other threads and cobbled together the letter below in the hope they just drop the charge. Could any of you helpful folk comment on whether it's got enough or too much info in it?


    Dear Parking Eye,

    In reference to the speculative invoice received xxxxxx dated xxxxxx, the keeper denies all liability to your company as:

    • It is an unlawful punitive charge, thus a penalty.
    • The driver waited over 15 minutes before finding a parking space and was therefore not parked for the specified time.
    • The fee is disproportionate and far exceeds the cost to the land owner.
    • The car park was around two thirds empty at time of departure so the driver was not preventing anyone else from using the car park.
    If you reject this challenge the keeper requires within 35 days a POPLA verification code for them to appeal independently, per Version 3 of the BPA Code of Practice.

    The keeper has nothing further to add, and will not respond to any correspondence from your company unless it contains the POPLA code. Furthermore, the keeper is fully aware that you must pay £27+Vat for this.

    The challenge will be deemed accepted if there is no POPLA code on any rejection that you supply within the time-frame stipulated above.

    Yours Faithfully...

    Point 4 is irrelevant, (think speeding on an empty motorway).

    Point 2 is this true? They may have actual density of parking at your entry time on record.

    No need for the " furthermore" sentence
  • nigelbb
    nigelbb Posts: 3,787
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    Guys_Dad wrote: »
    Point 4 is irrelevant, (think speeding on an empty motorway).
    If the PPC were legitimately to claim damages for a genuine pre-estimate of loss the fact that the car park was empty does have relevance. If it had been Xmas & the car park full to overflowing then the argument could be made that by overstaying they were preventing a "genuine" shopper from parking & thus there was a quantifiable loss. However...

    The only point that should be in the challenge is that the keeper denies any liability for a charge that is clearly an unenforceable penalty. No mention of the driver or conditions in the car park as it is the keeper delivering the challenge & the keeper may well be unaware as to who was driving let alone whether the car park was empty.
  • bazster
    bazster Posts: 7,436
    Combo Breaker First Post
    Forumite
    nigelbb wrote: »
    If the PPC were legitimately to claim damages for a genuine pre-estimate of loss the fact that the car park was empty does have relevance. If it had been Xmas & the car park full to overflowing then the argument could be made that by overstaying they were preventing a "genuine" shopper from parking & thus there was a quantifiable loss. However...

    Said "genuine" shopper might've bought a 50p packet of sweeties or might've bought a £1,000 television - or might've just browsed and bought nothing.

    No way is a hypothetical loss such as that quantifiable. A genuine pre-estimate of loss needs be in regard to an actual loss, not a "maybe" loss.
    Je suis Charlie.
  • gwarpig
    gwarpig Posts: 5 Forumite
    Thanks all for the wonderfully fast and clear advice. Letter is now cut down to a single denial of liability and and finishes with a sentence that makes more sense!

    One more thing, as a noob I've seen numerous threads that say "come back to us when you've got a POPLA reference and we'll help you put together a defence." Should I just continue this thread or post a new one?
  • nigelbb
    nigelbb Posts: 3,787
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    bazster wrote: »
    Said "genuine" shopper might've bought a 50p packet of sweeties or might've bought a £1,000 television - or might've just browsed and bought nothing.

    No way is a hypothetical loss such as that quantifiable. A genuine pre-estimate of loss needs be in regard to an actual loss, not a "maybe" loss.
    Agreed but my point was that a half empty car park negates the possibility of them even trying to use this tactic.
  • bazster
    bazster Posts: 7,436
    Combo Breaker First Post
    Forumite
    gwarpig wrote: »
    Thanks all for the wonderfully fast and clear advice. Letter is now cut down to a single denial of liability and and finishes with a sentence that makes more sense!

    One more thing, as a noob I've seen numerous threads that say "come back to us when you've got a POPLA reference and we'll help you put together a defence." Should I just continue this thread or post a new one?

    Continue this one, so long as no-one else has hijacked it in the meantime. It'll pop right back to the top when you next post.
    Je suis Charlie.
  • Guys_Dad
    Guys_Dad Posts: 11,025
    First Post Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    nigelbb wrote: »
    If the PPC were legitimately to claim damages for a genuine pre-estimate of loss the fact that the car park was empty does have relevance. If it had been Xmas & the car park full to overflowing then the argument could be made that by overstaying they were preventing a "genuine" shopper from parking & thus there was a quantifiable loss. However....

    Would that not be a loss to the shops and not the PPC? Unless there was any case-by-case financial agreement between the PPC and merchants in their contract, can't immediately see the cost to the PPC.
  • bazster
    bazster Posts: 7,436
    Combo Breaker First Post
    Forumite
    Guys_Dad wrote: »
    Would that not be a loss to the shops and not the PPC? Unless there was any case-by-case financial agreement between the PPC and merchants in their contract, can't immediately see the cost to the PPC.

    That's a damned good point sir! In fact, on a multiple-occupancy retail park there wouldn't even be a contract between the shops and the PPC, the PPC would have contracted with the landowner or some management company.
    Je suis Charlie.
  • nigelbb
    nigelbb Posts: 3,787
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    Guys_Dad wrote: »
    Would that not be a loss to the shops and not the PPC? Unless there was any case-by-case financial agreement between the PPC and merchants in their contract, can't immediately see the cost to the PPC.
    The PPC never has any losses if a motorist commits a parking crime They can't possibly have any losses because of their business model. Their only income is when a motorist transgresses their rules so on the contrary there is no loss but a potential gain.

    The alleged contract for parking is never with the PPC it's always with the landowner with the PPC acting as their agent. Any losses can only ever be those of the landowner. As the PPC is only ever an agent not a principal they can never sue for those losses either. This is why PE are going to come seriously unstuck in court if they persist in their claims against motorists.

    There is an exception in Trevor Whitehouses's ANPR Ltd as their signs claim that for each parking crime they are obliged to pay the landowner £100. This is a lie which was revealed by a sample contract produced at POPLA. It is just as well it's not true otherwise they would be losing £50 each time they offer to take just £50 from the motorist for prompt payment.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 342.5K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 234.6K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.8K Life & Family
  • 247.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards