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
    • ScottyMaz12
    • By ScottyMaz12 16th Mar 17, 7:56 AM
    • 8Posts
    • 4Thanks
    ScottyMaz12
    POPLA Appeal re: PCN at Oldbury Green Retail Park
    • #1
    • 16th Mar 17, 7:56 AM
    POPLA Appeal re: PCN at Oldbury Green Retail Park 16th Mar 17 at 7:56 AM
    Hello all, just wondering if I could maybe get some help and advice with my appeal to POPLA please - the PCN I received is for a 21-minute overstay at the above site (which offers 3hrs free parking) and is the version that contains the POFA '29 days' info. I have also not named the vehicle's driver in correspondence thus far.

    I have pieced together the below using some of the key points/templates found across this forum, so would be grateful for any feedback that can be provided to fine-tune the appeal:

    POPLA Ref: XXXXXXX
    ParkingEye PCN Ref No. XXXXX/XXXXX

    A notice to keeper was issued on (date) and received by me, the registered keeper of Vehicle Reg: XXXXXX on (date) for an alleged contravention of ‘BREACH OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF USE’’ at Oldbury Green Retail Park. I am writing to you as the registered keeper and would be grateful if you would please consider my appeal for the following reasons:

    1. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge

    2. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

    3. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

    4. ANPR Accuracy and Compliance

    5. Grace Periods

    6. 'Genuine customer' exemption criteria unevidenced and not explained to drivers.


    1. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge

    In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

    In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

    As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

    The burden of proof rests with the Operator to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

    Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

    Understanding keeper liability
    “There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.


    There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''

    Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.

    This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
    ''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''

    2. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

    As ParkingEye Ltd does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

    Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

    Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

    Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

    7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

    7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

    a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

    b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

    c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

    d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

    e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement


    3. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

    There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

    In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:

    (photo)

    In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.

    Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

    (photo)

    This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

    Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.

    It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

    This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

    ''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

    From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.

    The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:

    (link)

    As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:

    (link)

    ''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2” letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3” or even larger.''

    ...and the same chart is reproduced here:

    (link/photo)

    ''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.

    ''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''

    So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

    Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':

    (1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
    (2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.


    The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

    This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:

    (link)

    This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

    So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.

    4. ANPR Accuracy and Compliance

    I require ParkingEye Ltd to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that ParkingEye Ltd must produce evidence in response to these points and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the Operator in ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence from the Operator was 'fundamentally flawed' as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.

    So, in addition to showing their maintenance records, I require ParkingEye Ltd in this case to show evidence to rebut this point: I suggest that in the case of my vehicle being in this car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The operator appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live". Hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. Therefore I contend that this ANPR "evidence" from this Operator in this car park is just as unreliable as the ParkingEye system in the Fox-Jones case and I put this Operator to strict proof to the contrary.

    In addition, the unreliable/unsynchronised ANPR system used, and lack of information about the use of data, is not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice, which contains the following:
    ''21 Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR)
    21.1 You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.
    21.2 Quality checks: before you issue a parking charge notice you must carry out a manual quality check of the ANPR images to reduce errors and make sure that it is appropriate to take action. Full details of the items you should check are listed in the Operators’ Handbook.
    21.3 You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your car parks in good working order. You need to make sure the data you are collecting is accurate, securely held and cannot be tampered with.
    21.4 It is also a condition of the Code that, if you receive and process vehicle or registered keeper data, you must:
    • be registered with the Information Commissioner
    • keep to the Data Protection Act
    • follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data
    • follow the guidelines from the Information Commissioner’s Office on the use of CCTV and ANPR cameras, and on keeping and sharing personal data such as vehicle registration marks.''

    At this location, there are merely a couple of secret small cameras up high on a pole. No signs at the car park clearly tell drivers about this technology nor how the data captured by ANPR cameras will be used. This means the system does not operate in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner, and I have reason to believe that, potentially, every section of paragraph 21 is breached here. Unless the Operator can show documentary evidence otherwise, then this BPA Cop breach would also point to a failure to comply with the POFA 2012 (keeper liability requires strict compliance), a failure to comply with the ICO terms of registration and a breach of the CPUTR 2008 (claiming to comply with the BPA Code of Practice when I believe it is not the case). This Operator is put to strict proof to the contrary.

    5. Grace Periods

    The BPA Code of Practice (CoP) makes it mandatory for operators to allow grace periods at the start and end of parking, before enforcement action can be taken.

    The CoP states:

    13.1 Your approach to parking management must allow a
    driver who enters your car park but decides not to park,
    to leave the car park within a reasonable period without
    having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.
    13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’
    in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the
    driver is on your land without permission you should still
    allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave
    before you take enforcement action.
    13.3 You should be prepared to tell us the specific grace period
    at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is.
    13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the
    private car park after the parking contract has ended, before
    you take enforcement action. If the location is one where
    parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end
    of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.

    For the avoidance of doubt, the second 'grace' period of at least ten minutes (not a maximum, but a minimum) is in addition to the separate, first grace/observation period that must be allowed to allow the time taken to arrive, find a parking bay, lock the car and go over to any machine to read & observe the signage terms, before paying.

    Kelvin Reynolds of the BPA says there is a difference between ‘grace’ periods and ‘observation’ periods in parking and that good practice allows for this:

    (link)

    Good car parking practice includes ‘grace’ periods
    “An observation period is the time when an enforcement officer should be able to determine what the motorist intends to do once in the car park. The BPA’s guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator’s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket,” he explains.

    “No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.”


    The BPA’s guidance defines the ‘grace period’ as the time allowed after permitted or paid-for parking has expired but before any kind of enforcement takes place.

    Given that no evidence has been provided as to the trustworthiness of the timing system used to generate the date stamps attached to the photographs (please also see points relating to this issue above) 21 minutes in total is perfectly within scope of both the MINIMUM grace periods and any potential error in time recording.

    Taking both BPA 'Observation' and 'Grace' Periods into account, considering the type and location of this busy car park and unreliability of timestamped evidence on the photographs supplied, I contend that the PCN was not properly given.
Page 1
    • ScottyMaz12
    • By ScottyMaz12 16th Mar 17, 7:57 AM
    • 8 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    ScottyMaz12
    • #2
    • 16th Mar 17, 7:57 AM
    • #2
    • 16th Mar 17, 7:57 AM
    cont.

    6. 'Genuine customer' exemption criteria unevidenced and not explained to drivers (UNSURE IF THIS SECTION IS NEEDED/RELEVANT...)

    This parking operator offered parking to shoppers of the retailers. It is not disputed that the occupants of the car were genuine shoppers. Notwithstanding that the driver has not been identified, I supplied receipts with the first appeal because I understand from my research of other cases, that this operator supplies a 'User Manual' or 'Site Manual' to all retailers which allows for 'genuine customers' to have their charges cancelled (regardless of whether a shopper overstayed) if the customer complains and show receipts.

    It is noted that the contractual terms on the signage fail to advise customers of this secret clause or the ceiling of 'total spending' above which a parking charge will be cancelled, so visitors have no way of knowing these terms.

    I contend that the occupants of the car did spend enough in the retailers for the PCN to be cancelled (copy receipts attached as proof of this submission) and if the operator disagrees I require sight of the full 'discretionary criteria' clause from the User Manual which forms a vital part of their contract with the landowner and agreement with the retailers. This will need to be a true copy and show the circumstances under which the operator will cancel a charge for a genuine customer, including any defined total spend limit where the clause applies.

    POPLA please note: this is NOT a point of mitigation, this is a case of this operator failing to evidence that they have correctly applied the 'criteria' (whatever it might be) in the site/User Manual and if they cannot evidence that they did, then the parking charge cannot be considered 'properly given' at the point of refusing my appeal. A Site/User Manual sets out the criteria under which the parking enforcement operates from the retailers' informational point of view and it forms a vital part of the landowner contract which is relevant to this appeal.

    If this operator remains silent on any appeal point then it is deemed accepted.


    In full consideration of the above points I ask that you uphold this appeal, thus cancelling all charges with immediate effect.
    • ScottyMaz12
    • By ScottyMaz12 16th Mar 17, 7:37 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    ScottyMaz12
    • #3
    • 16th Mar 17, 7:37 PM
    • #3
    • 16th Mar 17, 7:37 PM
    I would also be grateful if anyone could advise what happens should ParkingEye not respond to an appeal within their set 35 day limit? I submitted a second appeal for another PCN on 12 February but am yet to receive a response (despite receiving the response to my appeal detailed above within 4 days!)
    • Guys Dad
    • By Guys Dad 16th Mar 17, 7:58 PM
    • 9,873 Posts
    • 8,852 Thanks
    Guys Dad
    • #4
    • 16th Mar 17, 7:58 PM
    • #4
    • 16th Mar 17, 7:58 PM
    Date of contravention and date on NtK please.

    Are you saying that PE have sent out a non-POFA compliant NtK?

    Most unusual, but I don't fully grasp the 29 day point you made so maybe it's me.
    • ScottyMaz12
    • By ScottyMaz12 16th Mar 17, 8:09 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    ScottyMaz12
    • #5
    • 16th Mar 17, 8:09 PM
    • #5
    • 16th Mar 17, 8:09 PM
    Thank you for your reply.

    Date of Contravention: 16 January
    Date PCN Issued: 20 January

    My PCN is the one without the blank space/section, so it has the paragraph which reads 'You are warned that if, after 29 days from the date given... we have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from you' in the middle.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 17th Mar 17, 10:07 AM
    • 45,820 Posts
    • 58,809 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #6
    • 17th Mar 17, 10:07 AM
    • #6
    • 17th Mar 17, 10:07 AM
    So remove #1 which is only relevant for a non-POFA PCN.

    And take out #4 as it is old and easy for PE to rebut with their standard guff about the system having a hundred million inbuilt checks and being the same as the camera systems used by NASA and Buckingham Palace (yes, their evidence packs really do say that!).

    6. 'Genuine customer' exemption criteria unevidenced and not explained to drivers (UNSURE IF THIS SECTION IS NEEDED/RELEVANT...)
    That's relevant to a retail park where an appeal was put in by a genuine patron with a receipt, and PE have rejected saying the receipt doesn't meet the secret figure they are looking for a person to have spent (unadvertised, secret clause).
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • ScottyMaz12
    • By ScottyMaz12 17th Mar 17, 11:36 AM
    • 8 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    ScottyMaz12
    • #7
    • 17th Mar 17, 11:36 AM
    • #7
    • 17th Mar 17, 11:36 AM
    Thank you for your reply - i unfortunately forgot to mention that i had to submit my appeal by today, so I've just sent what I had and will hope for the best! My own fault for leaving it til the last minute, so will deal with the next stage when it comes.

    Re: my other query - been 33 days since I appealed PCN 2 (same location, different date, 14-min overstay), I received an email receipt of the appeal from ParkingEye but nothing since, so I went onto the ParkingEye site and the PCN remains 'open' and will allow me to appeal it again - is this normal, or have they somehow lost my appeal??
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 17th Mar 17, 12:47 PM
    • 45,820 Posts
    • 58,809 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #8
    • 17th Mar 17, 12:47 PM
    • #8
    • 17th Mar 17, 12:47 PM
    Email them to chase the POPLA code:

    info@parkingeye.co.uk

    Put the PCN number xxxxxx/xxxxxx in the subject line
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • ScottyMaz12
    • By ScottyMaz12 25th Mar 17, 3:12 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    ScottyMaz12
    • #9
    • 25th Mar 17, 3:12 PM
    • #9
    • 25th Mar 17, 3:12 PM
    Thank you for your reply, and apologies for the delay in responding to you.

    I've still received no contact from ParkingEye in relation to this second appeal so will email them now to enquire - should I mention in the email that they are now past the 35-day stage, or will this form the basis of my appeal to POPLA? Or is it not relevant at all...
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 25th Mar 17, 3:34 PM
    • 45,820 Posts
    • 58,809 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yes you could.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • ScottyMaz12
    • By ScottyMaz12 14th Apr 17, 1:35 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    ScottyMaz12
    Just to provide an update:

    - My POPLA appeal against the first PCN was successful, with ParkingEye apparently choosing not to contest this further and therefore cancelling the charge!

    - I emailed ParkingEye on 1st April regarding their failure to respond to my appeal to them over my second PCN, but they have still not replied - do you have any further suggestions over how to proceed with this?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th Apr 17, 4:28 PM
    • 45,820 Posts
    • 58,809 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Once it is past 35 days, chase it again and then complain to the BPA.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • ScottyMaz12
    • By ScottyMaz12 21st Apr 17, 11:00 AM
    • 8 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    ScottyMaz12
    Thank you - can confirm that I chased again on 14 April (61 days after lodging my initial appeal!) and am still yet to receive a response, so I will give them until next week and then lodge the complaint with the BPA.
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

2,419Posts Today

6,260Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • The strange thing with a 4yr old is having to play & smile while inside feeling sick for those in trauma in my birth town #Manchester

  • Just a quick ta-ta for now. I'm taking the week off for family time with mini and Mrs MSE. So I won't be here much. Back after the bank hol

  • Ugh another one trying it! Beware https://t.co/Ab9fCRA76F

  • Follow Martin