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
    • FeelingLighterAlready
    • By FeelingLighterAlready 11th Apr 17, 11:36 AM
    • 91Posts
    • 31Thanks
    FeelingLighterAlready
    Parking Eye Penalty Notice Charge - Canvey Island Seafront
    • #1
    • 11th Apr 17, 11:36 AM
    Parking Eye Penalty Notice Charge - Canvey Island Seafront 11th Apr 17 at 11:36 AM
    Hi all,

    I have received a Parking Charge Notice from these rip off merchants again (had one last year for a different location which I successfully got cancelled). I have looked on the forum and just wondered if anyone could help me with a template letter to send to them to dispute this, as last year Morrisons were able to cancel it for me as the car park was behind one of their stores. However, this particular car park is based on the Seafront wall and opposite some shops and bars so dont think I can write to anybody else about it? The signage was most definitely NOT clearly displayed and I actually couldnt see a meter to pay either. My friend also parked in this car park that very afternoon and she didnt pay either for the same reason! Although she hasnt got a ticket yet.

    Your help would be most appreciated.

    Thanks
Page 3
    • FeelingLighterAlready
    • By FeelingLighterAlready 5th Jun 17, 5:53 PM
    • 91 Posts
    • 31 Thanks
    FeelingLighterAlready
    Hi all, so i have received Parking Eye's evidence via POPLA and it is over 40 pages long! I dont know where to begin to tell you what they are saying. However I fear I may have to pay this because they are showing signs for the car park (that I did not see where I parked!) and also a signed contract with Starr Snooker for car park management services???? It's dated 2012??

    Help urgently needed please as I have 7 days to get something back to them :-( I don't have the money to pay this.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 5th Jun 17, 8:04 PM
    • 46,959 Posts
    • 60,316 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    so i have received Parking Eye's evidence via POPLA and it is over 40 pages long!
    Normal for PE. Template stuff. I've seen 55 pages before!


    However I fear I may have to pay
    Why? Because they sent the usual rubbish deluge of template crap everyone gets?


    Help urgently needed please as I have 7 days to get something back to them
    We know, that's the POPLA process, everyone does this. Nothing different here. Not that urgent compared to some.

    So, like in all the dozens of other 'POPLA evidence comments/rebuttal' threads, show us the evidence pack if you can host the entire downloaded drivel in Dropbox, and tell us blow by blow, the actual holes you have spotted in the 'evidence'.

    Not how many pages it is and you think you must pay... we want to know what you've spotted that will win this for you. Yes, you do know what you are looking for because you have read your POPLA appeal and know the points you made. How did they fail to contest your appeal?

    Pick holes in it instead of being impressed by it as if it's something special.
    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.

    • FeelingLighterAlready
    • By FeelingLighterAlready 5th Jun 17, 11:00 PM
    • 91 Posts
    • 31 Thanks
    FeelingLighterAlready
    Thank you Coupon Mad. I have drafted my rebuttal. Please let me know what you think, when you get a chance.


    REBUTTAL OF EVIDENCE

    SECTION A – EVIDENCE CHECKLIST

    Rules and Conditions
    How can this be a paid parking car park when there are no phone numbers to pay by card or Paid Parking machines to insert coins which then produce a ticket? Parking Eye’s own photographic evidence does not show any paid parking machines.

    Evidence G
    Which system generated this print out? The ANPR system? As there were no paid parking machines present in the car park (as shown in the photographic evidence here) so which system was this?

    Supply Agreement/”Contract” - Why can the full document not be shown? If it is a legally binding agreement that proves they own the land then why not? Also this is called a ‘supply agreement’ and not a ‘contract’ as you stipulate here and it was signed by a ‘partner’ and not by ‘the property manager’ as ParkingEye also incorrectly state here. There isn’t even a name for the said signature! If this is the so called landowner agreement that ParkingEye have with the landowner then there is no way that there can be a legally binding contract between ParkingEye and the Registered Keeper.

    Grace Period
    Grace periods are irrelevant when you cannot prove that the vehicle was definitely parked in this car park. The photographic evidence supplied here does not show that the car was parked in this car park at the time stated.

    Further Information
    If ParkingEye ensured that all signage was clear and ample, in line with the British Parking Association regulations then why produce out of date photographic evidence of a car park that dates as far back as 2008 which is 9 and half years ago right up to 2016! It is appalling that out of date photos are being used to try to justify issuing a parking ticket when the conditions of the car park in question are very run down, with no clear and ample signage and no paid parking machines which ParkingEye so clearly state in their Terms and Conditions in this very evidence! They cannot even provide the photographic evidence of these in this case.

    “Once ParkingEye has installed the cameras, signage and other technology at a site, we will test the system extensively before Parking Charges are issued on site. This involves allowing the site to function normally without Parking Charges being issued, to ensure that the system is functioning correctly.”
    What about maintenance and ensuring the general upkeep of this technology? There is certainly no evidence to suggest that ParkingEye ensure the regular testing of their cameras, signage and other technology at a site to ensure that it is all clearly labelled and easy to see and find, their out of date photographic evidence prove this – where are the paid parking machines? Were they ever in this car park? If ParkingEye do not maintain the site enough to update the signs and ensure their clear visibility then they must not have visited to remove these paid parking machines? So were they ever there? It would appear that ParkingEye are attempting to catch drivers out in order to issue parking charges and keep their business thriving, which is wholly unethical and needs to be stopped.


    SECTION B – CASE SUMMARY / COPY OF ANY TERMS/CONDITIONS
    Page 5 states under payment options – paid parking machines. This is untrue as there were no paid parking machines in this car park on that day and ParkingEye’s photographs in this evidence do not show any either which only proves this point.


    SECTION D – REGISTERED KEEPER / LIABILITY TRAIL

    As already mentioned, the photographs on page 15 of the car show no direct link to this car park. There is no proof that the vehicle was either parked or driving through this car park from these photographs as they merely show a portion of the car and nothing surrounding the area, only a gravel stoned path.


    SECTION E -ORIGINAL REPRESENTATION / NOTICE OF REJECTION

    Page 26 of Parking Eye’s evidence under this section clearly shows an undated letter and it is unclear as to why this was included in this evidence as payment was never requested from Parking Eye. It does however state that ‘you have not formed a legally binding contract with Parking Eye which you have acquired any right to invoice ParkingEye and/or seek payment for goods or services, and the sum sought is therefore rejected’. This is clear and so there cannot be a contract made between the Registered Keeper and ParkingEye, as clearly stated here. Therefore this parking charge is null and void if no contract was ever made.


    SECTION F -IMAGES, PHOTOGRAPHS AND PLANS ETC

    Signage Plan
    This address does not match that which is stated on the Parking Charge, the parking charge only states ‘Seafront Canvey Island’ – why was the below address not clearly shown on the parking charge if this was the case?

    Seafront Canvey Island
    31-33 Eastern Esplanade
    Canvey Island
    Essex SS8 7DN


    The signs shown do not have a contact phone number to ring up and make payment if there are no paid ticket machines within the car park, which there weren’t in this case. So how could somebody have made a payment even if these signs were allocated where Parking Eye are saying they were, even though their own photographic evidence does not back this statement up?

    The signs on the day in question did not clearly show as these signs do, that parking was free for patrons of the nearby businesses. If this was the case, then surely this should have been made clear as soon as a vehicle drove into the car park itself. It was not.

    Photographs
    The clear time stamp on each of these photographs is incorrect. Some say 12th November 2015 whilst others say 2015/09/08 and there is no evidence to suggest that this car park even looks like this now or on the date in question. It certainly did not when the driver visited. The text below the photographs is also contradictory as the different dates are years before the car was even supposed to have parked here - 25th April 2016 and 14th November 2015. These photos are used to detract from the lack of signage in the current car park and the state that this car park is now in.

    Sign type 1b is dated 2015/09/08 and sign type 1a is dated 12/11/2015. How is this sufficient evidence to display the most recent state of this car park and where the signs are in place? According to the driver, this looks like a completely different car park and is not proof of where these signs are actually located at the present time. They are merely pictures of signs, with nothing to suggest that they are actually in this car park to begin with – some of them could be located anywhere! The Site Overview picture is just somebody placing text boxes onto a picture – there is no proof that the signs were allocated in these positions. Again, the signage allocation page is not valid as there is no proof that the signs are in place and is merely a key to the picture below it. Pointless piece of paper and certainly not ‘evidence’.


    SECTION G - OTHER EVIDENCE
    Whitelist Lookup – EK55 DFE
    What is the point of this part of Parking Eye’s evidence? It only states ‘no results’. This could have been typed up by anybody and certainly does not prove anything.


    This is not sufficient evidence to prove that Parking Eye are the landowner of the Canvey Island seafront car park for the below reasons:-


    Supply Agreement for Car Park Management – Basic
    This appears to be a makeshift document created by Parking Eye.
    The copy scanned is very poor quality and is barely legible, it is difficult to tell what the text says and who the company and individual names are.
    It is also dated 20th March 2012 which is over 5 years ago.
    There is no mention of the site name and/or address on this document so how can this proven to be the correct car park that the driver was supposedly in?
    The signature for the ‘customer’ on this document is not clear as it merely states ‘partner’ under the Name section so where is the proof of the person who actually signed this? Also why is the agreement dated 20th March but the signature was on the 19th March, why not the same date as the agreement? Who is Rachel Ledson and who does she actually work for? Your agreement states that she is Head of Legal Services with yourselves. However, according to LinkedIn, there is only one Rachel Ledson and she is Head of Legal Services at Capita in Preston, UK who are an entirely different company and definitely not ParkingEye! Surely this document is then not legally binding if the person who signed it doesn’t even work for ParkingEye?
    What appears to be 2 pages of Terms and Conditions at the end of this one page agreement are completely illegible on this scanned document.
    Why do black boxes appear in parts of this agreement, if Parking Eye has nothing to hide?
    If the signs in your evidence state that parking is free to patrons of the businesses directly opposite then why does this document say ‘no free stay’ under the car park free stay time limit. Who is this business? The writing is very difficult to read but does it say Starr Snooker? In which case, why on the Movie Starr website, under the Starr Snooker section does it say that “Movie Starr has its own private car park directly opposite” Are they Movie Starr, the cinema? In which case shouldn’t this agreement be signed by them and not Starr Snooker if they are in actual fact the owners? In which case wouldn’t this mean that your makeshift agreement here is not legally binding? Also why does it not say that it is free to park here for all patrons (of the Movie Starr cinema amongst others) as it does on the signs and on their website but not in your agreement? Contradictory evidence indeed.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 5th Jun 17, 11:16 PM
    • 46,959 Posts
    • 60,316 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Maybe add more, as these ''whitelist look-ups'' never have a date or location:

    SECTION G - OTHER EVIDENCE
    Whitelist Lookup – EK55 DFE
    What is the point of this part of Parking Eye’s evidence? It only states ‘no results’. This could have been typed up by anybody and certainly does not prove anything. There is no location code nor site address nor date, so this is not a lookup of anything evidential for POPLA at all.
    Didn't you also mention that the contract was from 2012? Usually in the small print it also says that these contracts run for 12 months, so point out that this appears to be an expired contract from 4 or 5 years ago.

    You need to change the way it is written because you say ''you'' as if you are talking to PE but they don't get to see this. Your comments are for POPLA and should be brief, and not saying ''you'' but instead: ''the operator''.

    I would remove any mention of ANPR unreliability because POPLA don't ever consider that argument.
    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.

    • FeelingLighterAlready
    • By FeelingLighterAlready 5th Jun 17, 11:45 PM
    • 91 Posts
    • 31 Thanks
    FeelingLighterAlready
    Wow thanks so much for the swift response! And yes I will change it as you suggest and post further tomorrow just to double check that it's ok to send to POPLA.

    I cannot read the small print on the contract as it's way too unclear, blurry and small unfortunately but will take a closer look in the morning at work.

    ANPR unreliability - did you mean the fact I say that my car could be anywhere from the camera pics or?
    • Redx
    • By Redx 5th Jun 17, 11:51 PM
    • 14,437 Posts
    • 18,026 Thanks
    Redx
    if its is unclear and blurry , say so, an unreadable contract to you is the same for popla, so if they cannot read it then they should rule in your favour , so point that out too

    same applies for any pictures or other "evidence"

    POPLA never consider ANPR camera use or its inherent unreliability

    as for not being able to pay , that is irrelevant because in legal terms being unable to pay holds no sway in law

    popla and courts decide on the law, not your inability to pay

    enforcement is done by third parties after a judgment is made , the ability to pay doesnt come into it (surely you have learned this by watching the many tv programmes or law shows ?)

    nobody wins a case on the inability to pay
    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
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 5th Jun 17, 11:53 PM
    • 46,959 Posts
    • 60,316 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    ANPR unreliability - did you mean the fact I say that my car could be anywhere from the camera pics or?
    Originally posted by FeelingLighterAlready
    No, saying the car could be anywhere/outside the barrier is necessary.

    The bit I meant was where you talk about technology and cameras:
    What about maintenance and ensuring the general upkeep of this technology? There is certainly no evidence to suggest that ParkingEye ensure the regular testing of their cameras, signage and other technology at a site to ensure that it is all clearly labelled and easy to see and find
    I think your stronger point is simply where you say they have shown no photos of any P&D machines in the car park.
    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.

    • FeelingLighterAlready
    • By FeelingLighterAlready 10th Jun 17, 8:16 PM
    • 91 Posts
    • 31 Thanks
    FeelingLighterAlready
    Thank you for all your help and guidance everyone, especially Coupon Mad - not sure what I'd have done without this site or your kind selves!

    I have just sent off my Evidence Rebuttal PDF doc to POPLA and will keep you updated of the result......
    • FeelingLighterAlready
    • By FeelingLighterAlready 10th Jun 17, 8:16 PM
    • 91 Posts
    • 31 Thanks
    FeelingLighterAlready
    I meant I have emailed it to them :-)
    • Mikeguk
    • By Mikeguk 16th Jun 17, 10:59 PM
    • 1 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Mikeguk
    Hi all. Apologies if I am posting in the wrong place. I received a parking eye fine today £60 for parking on a car park for 12 minutes while I dropped my 10yr old son off at a party inside the premises (DW Fitness) whom the car park belongs to. I feel it is unfair to charge as I was only dropping him off and he is clearly too young to make his own way into the building. Unfortunately it took longer than expected to get him in there.
    So the big question. Is Parking Eye a legitimate company and do i pay the fine?
    Thanks in advance
    Mike
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 16th Jun 17, 11:11 PM
    • 13,145 Posts
    • 20,539 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Apologies if I am posting in the wrong place
    Yes

    Is Parking Eye a legitimate company
    Yes

    do i pay the fine
    No. And it's not a fine.

    Go back to the forum thread list, one page back from here and read the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #1 will do for now.

    Then, after a thorough reading, if you have any further questions, please start a new thread of your own.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    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.
    • pogofish
    • By pogofish 16th Jun 17, 11:24 PM
    • 7,127 Posts
    • 7,146 Thanks
    pogofish
    Hi all. Apologies if I am posting in the wrong place.
    Originally posted by Mikeguk
    You are - and you confirmed that you knew the right place as part of your signup - Sp go and post there!
    • FeelingLighterAlready
    • By FeelingLighterAlready 23rd Jun 17, 5:06 PM
    • 91 Posts
    • 31 Thanks
    FeelingLighterAlready
    Just letting you all know that I have this afternoon received an email from POPLA with my appeal decision and.....my appeal was successful! The assessor decided to go with the following (just in case it helps others):-

    "The appellant states the operator does not have the authority to issue charges or form contracts with drivers. The operator has provided a copy of the landowner contract, which details that the operator could issue PCN’s from 20 March 2012 for 12 months. Section 7 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice requires operators to own the land or to have written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. As the operator has not provided any evidence to suggest that the contract was still in palce on the date the PCN was issued I cannot conclude that the operator had the authority. As such I cannot confirm that the PCN has been issued correctly and I must allow the appeal. I note the appellant has raised further grounds of appeal, however I do not need to look at these as I have allowed the appeal."

    Very relieved its over!

    Thank you again to all for your help.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 23rd Jun 17, 5:32 PM
    • 6,578 Posts
    • 5,521 Thanks
    The Deep
    Is it not unreasonable for a PPC to pretend it ia authorised when it is not?
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 23rd Jun 17, 5:46 PM
    • 13,145 Posts
    • 20,539 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    No authority to issue charges or form contracts with drivers (as confirmed by the independent assessor) = no reasonable cause to access your data from the DVLA. They have now exposed themselves to a claim for damages, distress and anxiety caused by the misuse of your data in them pursuing a charge they had no legal right to.

    If you now want to turn the tables you could sue them for misuse of your data under the DPA. It's not for the faint-hearted or for those who think it's an easy run, assuming the forums will do most of the work - they won't. If you're prepared to put your back into this, the following will hopefully assist you.

    DATA PROTECTION ACT GUIDANCE

    First and foremost, please read thoroughly this extensive guidance put together by MSE poster Timothea. This will give you the background and conditions for you to consider and determine whether you might have a case to pursue.

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5585388

    Other Sources

    http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/data-protection-act

    Some apposite blogs from the Parking Prankster:

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/liverpool-business-park-motorist-wins.html

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/smart-parking-settle-out-of-court-for.html

    Latter part of this blog:

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/heath-parade-graham-park-way-scam-site.html

    On PePiPoo, regular contributor 'Lynnzer' seems to be taking a lead in pushing for the pursuit of DPA breaches by PPCs. He has written a number of well constructed Letters Before Claim requiring the PPC to pay the motorist between £250 and £750 as compensation for the stress they have been put under by the PPC, or risk the matter resulting in a formal claim at the Small Claims Court. .

    Do a search there to get the hang of what this is all about and whether you might want to take this fight back to the PPC.

    http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=SF&s=&f=60

    LETTER BEFORE COUNTY COURT CLAIM

    Drafted by Bargepole 05/02/2017

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=72049019&postcount=18
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    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.
    • FeelingLighterAlready
    • By FeelingLighterAlready 23rd Jun 17, 5:56 PM
    • 91 Posts
    • 31 Thanks
    FeelingLighterAlready
    thank you for this - yes I think I will actually sue them now!! Threaten them at least as they are very cheeky thinking they can get away with not only misuse of my information but also wasting my time having to appeal something that I shouldnt have had to in the first place!

    This forum and website is amazing - thanks so much again! Will have a read through of all that and see about writing a letter to them informing them of my intention to sue them....
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 23rd Jun 17, 6:26 PM
    • 6,578 Posts
    • 5,521 Thanks
    The Deep
    It looks as though some chickens are starting to come home to roost.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
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

107Posts Today

2,012Users online

Martin's Twitter