Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Tobster86
    • By Tobster86 21st Jul 16, 8:08 PM
    • 725Posts
    • 470Thanks
    Tobster86
    Out of the loop for a couple of years; can I run this by everyone?
    • #1
    • 21st Jul 16, 8:08 PM
    Out of the loop for a couple of years; can I run this by everyone? 21st Jul 16 at 8:08 PM
    As "family plastic parking lawyer" I've dealt with quite a few speculative invoices (all successfully I'll add); but not for a couple of years. A driver of my sister in law's vehicle allegedly (by a certain Eye) forgot to enter the registration into an in-store terminal at certain budget supermarket (though they DID shop there), and I've been tasked with dealing with it.

    Aside from quirks with GPEOL after the Beavis case, I don't think much has changed and would like to deal with the issue quickly, but I should check to situation. Can I run this first-stage appeal I've bashed together in a few minutes by everyone for scrutiny?


    Dear <PPC>,

    I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

    I hereby deny any debt to your company and will not make payment under any circumstances.

    I do not recall whether the vehicle registration was entered into an in store terminal or not; but regardless, since the driver was making use of the facility as a customer of <Supermarket> Ltd at the time, neither <Supermarket> Ltd nor <certain Eye> Ltd have incurred any liquidated damages from the alleged failure to enter a registration into a terminal.

    The charge is therefore a penalty, which is not enforceable under English civil law. You are therefore warned that I consider your correspondence to be an "unwanted communication", with reference to Crown Prosecution Service guidelines regarding the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

    Do not contact me again, unless:
    -To decline the appeal and provide me with a valid POPLA code, in accordance with your obligations under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2011. You should note that under this course of action, I reserve the right to seek to remedy the situation through correspondence with Aldi Stores Ltd regardless of the decision outcome from POPLA; and understand that an application to POPLA costs you £27+vat regardless of outcome, which can not be claimed against myself.
    (Or)
    -To declare your original correspondence as no longer valid.

    Any other correspondence will be considered "repeated unwanted communications", and may be dealt with via criminal proceedings under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.


    <Sincerely in Christ>

    <Signature>
Page 1
    • Redx
    • By Redx 21st Jul 16, 8:33 PM
    • 12,459 Posts
    • 14,875 Thanks
    Redx
    • #2
    • 21st Jul 16, 8:33 PM
    • #2
    • 21st Jul 16, 8:33 PM
    the NEWBIES sticky thread has the first stage appeal in blue text which we normally recommend (unaltered)

    it also tells you about complaining to the landowner with copies of receipts or bank statements

    plus it tells you about appealing with copies of receipts or bank statements to the PPC, but not naming the driver

    so with that info , alter your appeal accordingly, with proof of patronage (if over £30) , plus complain to the supermarket separately and insist on a cancellation
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 21st Jul 16, 9:15 PM
    • 4,149 Posts
    • 4,769 Thanks
    beamerguy
    • #3
    • 21st Jul 16, 9:15 PM
    • #3
    • 21st Jul 16, 9:15 PM
    Tobster86 ... whilst I admire your stance, it is now 2 years on from your last win and Parking Eye who you refer to, have become the latest version of the Krays.

    Strongly suggest you listen to the advice on here before you give Parking Eye something to laugh over with their morning coffee

    PE can be beaten with the right advice
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 21st Jul 16, 11:32 PM
    • 40,566 Posts
    • 52,456 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #4
    • 21st Jul 16, 11:32 PM
    • #4
    • 21st Jul 16, 11:32 PM
    If you have the receipt and it's over £30 (or if the family has several receipts or proof of spending at this 'budget Supermarket') then also attach them to the online appeal because PE do often cancel when they see appeals from genuine patrons of shops.

    If a rejection letter arrives, remember for POPLA stage, that the signage is pants at this particular Budget Supermarket. All their car parks are badly signed, 90% of signs do not even mention the £70 charge and the keypad thing is in a dark corner on a wall indoors and can't form part of the contractual obligations if unseen/unknown.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 22nd Jul 16, 11:54 AM
    • 5,561 Posts
    • 4,272 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #5
    • 22nd Jul 16, 11:54 AM
    • #5
    • 22nd Jul 16, 11:54 AM
    I hereby deny any debt to your company and will not make payment under any circumstances.

    unless so instructed by a court
    • Tobster86
    • By Tobster86 4th Oct 16, 10:24 AM
    • 725 Posts
    • 470 Thanks
    Tobster86
    • #6
    • 4th Oct 16, 10:24 AM
    • #6
    • 4th Oct 16, 10:24 AM
    Follow up:
    Success at POPLA stage: "Parking Eye Ltd have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge."

    Appeal was the following, submitted as a PDF upload via the standard POPLA web interface:

    I appeal against the parking charge on the following grounds:

    (1) The operator alleges that the driver did not enter the vehicle registration correctly into the in store terminal, but the driver made sole and legitimate usage of the landowner's facilities.

    The driver on this occasion does not recall whether the operator's allegation is true, however the operator has not provided evidence to substantiate that it is the case.

    The driver had parked in the car park for the purpose of making use of the landowner's facilities; namely shopping at Aldi. No aggravating factor existed for them to wilfully break a contract. If they did not, as alleged, enter their registration into an in store terminal as required by signage; then logically that signage must not have been adequate or clear. No contract could therefore have been formed.

    (2) The operator has no legitimate interest in enforcing a charge under this circumstance, as defined by Beavis Vs Parking Eye Ltd.

    Clearly the amount requested is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and cannot be claimed on those grounds. I understand that the outcome from the Beavis Vs Parking Eye Ltd case determined that charges may be enforceable provided they are not "extravagant and unconscionable", and that there is a legitimate interest in enforcing the charge.

    The clear purpose of charging users of the facility for breach of contract is to prevent abuse of the facility, and thus a loss of earnings for the landowner by means of diminished patronage of the Aldi store. I identify three forms in which this can manifest:
    (i) Overstaying beyond the permitted free allowance.
    (ii) Using the facility other than for its intended purpose of expediting patronage of the Aldi store.
    (iii) Misusing the facility in such a way that may prevent proper use of the facility; such as parking obstructively.

    In the case of Beavis Vs Parking Eye, the driver had overstayed the free parking time despite the signage; and therefore, possibly wilfully, abused the facility to the potential detriment of the landowner since the parking space he overstayed in may have been unavailable to other customers.

    Such circumstances are not applicable in this case. There is simply no logical way that failing to enter a vehicle registration into a terminal, if this was the case as alleged, could possibly result in a loss of earnings to the landowner. There is therefore no legitimate interest in enforcing the charge, and the outcome of Beavis Vs Parking Eye is not relevant.

    The operator has been reasonably advised of this via their own appeals process and should have cancelled the charge; so any further costs of unreasonably pursuing the case by themselves do not constitute liquidated business losses as a result of the driver's refusal to pay the charge, as they are self-inflicted by the operator.
    Last edited by Tobster86; 04-10-2016 at 10:25 AM. Reason: Removed HTML formatting
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 4th Oct 16, 10:43 AM
    • 5,561 Posts
    • 4,272 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #7
    • 4th Oct 16, 10:43 AM
    • #7
    • 4th Oct 16, 10:43 AM
    I trust that you will be invoicing PE for your time.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 4th Oct 16, 10:45 AM
    • 4,149 Posts
    • 4,769 Thanks
    beamerguy
    • #8
    • 4th Oct 16, 10:45 AM
    • #8
    • 4th Oct 16, 10:45 AM
    Follow up:
    Success at POPLA stage: "Parking Eye Ltd have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge."


    The operator has been reasonably advised of this via their own appeals process and should have cancelled the charge; so any further costs of unreasonably pursuing the case by themselves do not constitute liquidated business losses as a result of the driver's refusal to pay the charge, as they are self-inflicted by the operator.
    Originally posted by Tobster86
    And now, I think that this POPLA decision can be the basis to defend against all those scammers who quote Beavis which has no bearing on someone's case.

    POPLA has given Parking Eye a spanking. Especially this being "self inflicted" by Parking Eye.

    Any future cases of the same nature should carry the same POPLA decision

    Well done Tobster86

    Please add this to the POPLA thread
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 4th Oct 16, 10:51 AM
    • 11,017 Posts
    • 16,450 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #9
    • 4th Oct 16, 10:51 AM
    • #9
    • 4th Oct 16, 10:51 AM
    And now, I think that this POPLA decision can be the basis to defend against all those scammers who quote Beavis which has no bearing on someone's case.

    POPLA has given Parking Eye a spanking. Especially this being "self inflicted" by Parking Eye.

    Any future cases of the same nature should carry the same POPLA decision

    Well done Tobster86

    Please add this to the POPLA thread
    Originally posted by beamerguy
    BG - I think you need to read the opening POPLA paragraph.

    Success at POPLA stage: "Parking Eye Ltd have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge."
    I don't detect any POPLA 'spanking' in that (unless you're into self flagellation).
    NEWBIES - wise up - DO NOT IGNORE A PARKING CHARGE NOTICE - you have been warned!

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.

    Please note: I am NOT involved in any 'paid for' appeals service.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 4th Oct 16, 10:54 AM
    • 4,149 Posts
    • 4,769 Thanks
    beamerguy
    BG - I think you need to read the opening POPLA paragraph.


    I don't detect any POPLA 'spanking' in that (unless you're into self flagellation).
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    Spanking or whatever you call it ..... POPLA said ..

    "The operator has been reasonably advised of this via their own appeals process and should have cancelled the charge; so any further costs of unreasonably pursuing the case by themselves do not constitute liquidated business losses as a result of the driver's refusal to pay the charge, as they are self-inflicted by the operator."
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 4th Oct 16, 10:57 AM
    • 11,017 Posts
    • 16,450 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Spanking or whatever you call it ..... POPLA said ..

    "The operator has been reasonably advised of this via their own appeals process and should have cancelled the charge; so any further costs of unreasonably pursuing the case by themselves do not constitute liquidated business losses as a result of the driver's refusal to pay the charge, as they are self-inflicted by the operator."
    Originally posted by beamerguy
    I rather think that was part of the OP's submission to POPLA. I've never witnessed POPLA making any form of comment - one way or another - once the PPC has withdrawn from the process.

    Perhaps the OP can confirm?

    PS - you called it 'a spanking', not me!
    NEWBIES - wise up - DO NOT IGNORE A PARKING CHARGE NOTICE - you have been warned!

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.

    Please note: I am NOT involved in any 'paid for' appeals service.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 4th Oct 16, 11:10 AM
    • 4,149 Posts
    • 4,769 Thanks
    beamerguy
    I rather think that was part of the OP's submission to POPLA. I've never witnessed POPLA making any form of comment - one way or another - once the PPC has withdrawn from the process.

    Perhaps the OP can confirm?

    PS - you called it 'a spanking', not me!
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    Whatever happened ..... PE would have seen the appeal and withdrew and maybe it was the OP who gave the spanking but, whatever one calls it, PE backed down

    I agree with the Deep, the OP should now invoice PE
    Last edited by beamerguy; 04-10-2016 at 11:14 AM.
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Tobster86
    • By Tobster86 11th Oct 16, 5:50 PM
    • 725 Posts
    • 470 Thanks
    Tobster86
    Slightly late with this but I should clarify; everything from (inclusively) "I appeal against the parking charge on the following grounds:" in my post constituted my own POPLA appeal wording; including the bit about "The operator has been reasonably advised...".

    This therefore wasn't much of a spanking as they simply didn't submit evidence, though it'd have been interesting to see if it turned into a spanking if they did.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,450Posts Today

6,083Users online

Martin's Twitter