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
    • llcomp2
    • By llcomp2 5th May 17, 3:20 PM
    • 11Posts
    • 4Thanks
    llcomp2
    Wye Valley PCN
    • #1
    • 5th May 17, 3:20 PM
    Wye Valley PCN 5th May 17 at 3:20 PM
    Hi all,

    I am looking for some advice on how to go about appealing a PCN.

    The keeper received a PCN from Parking Eye, for being parked at the Wye Valley Visitors centre.

    The Automatic Number Plate Recognition clocked the information that it was parked for 16 minutes longer than it should, however parking tickets show it was an overstay of 12 minutes after the ticket ran out.

    My current arguments are:

    The driver was a genuine paying customer

    No obvious signs to make clear to driver there is Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) before entering the car park and no barrier on the car park entry or exit.

    And the BPA Codes of Practice, Section 13.4 for grace periods leaving the car park being a minimum of 10 mins

    I have read the BPA PD&S Board meeting minutes from 30th July 2015 of an agreement supporting the 13.4 clause to reflect a mandatory 11 minute grace but I have not found any other information to back this up.

    Thanks in advance!
    Last edited by llcomp2; 05-05-2017 at 3:58 PM.
Page 1
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 5th May 17, 3:45 PM
    • 39,633 Posts
    • 79,279 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    • #2
    • 5th May 17, 3:45 PM
    • #2
    • 5th May 17, 3:45 PM
    Edit your post to remove information about who did what. You have given enough information to identify the driver.
    Delete the times and only refer to The Driver and The Keeper. These are separate people as far as anyone is concerned.

    Then, send the BPA template in blue from the NEWBIES thread which you should have already read by now. Copy and paste and send. No editing. Your other appeal points should be saved for your PoPLA appeal where you will refer, amongst other things, to both grace periods from the BPA CoP.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 5th May 17, 3:58 PM
    • 39,633 Posts
    • 79,279 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    • #3
    • 5th May 17, 3:58 PM
    • #3
    • 5th May 17, 3:58 PM
    That's better.
    Last edited by Fruitcake; 05-05-2017 at 4:00 PM.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • llcomp2
    • By llcomp2 5th May 17, 4:00 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    llcomp2
    • #4
    • 5th May 17, 4:00 PM
    • #4
    • 5th May 17, 4:00 PM
    That's better.
    Originally posted by Fruitcake
    Thanks Fruitcake!

    Any other advice on grounds to appeal the PCN?
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 5th May 17, 4:02 PM
    • 39,633 Posts
    • 79,279 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    • #5
    • 5th May 17, 4:02 PM
    • #5
    • 5th May 17, 4:02 PM
    Thanks Fruitcake!

    Any other advice on grounds to appeal the PCN?
    Originally posted by llcomp2
    Does the NTK have a paragraph mentioning something like, "if after 29 days ..." or is there a blank space as if something is missing? An example of the latter is shown in the NEWBIES.

    All your appeal points are in template form in post 3 of the NEWBIES, but you need to send the initial BPA template in blue first to get the PoPLA code.

    So, initial template appeal now then research your PoPLA appeal afterwards.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • Redx
    • By Redx 5th May 17, 4:38 PM
    • 14,735 Posts
    • 18,514 Thanks
    Redx
    • #6
    • 5th May 17, 4:38 PM
    • #6
    • 5th May 17, 4:38 PM
    read my comments on the grace period aspect in these threads

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5644298

    and

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5611760

    and

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5644429

    there are many more examples of this valid legal argument on the forum too

    now if we assume 6 minutes BEFORE the parking time starts , to enter, find a space , park up , read the signs , pay for a ticket and place it on the vehicle , plus over 10 minutes to leave the car park (11 minutes or more if delayed by circumstances beyond your control) , then 6 + 10 is within clause #13 of the BPA CoP , grace periods

    its a time before and a time after , not just time after

    plus add the other legal arguments as well

    so 11 minutes or 16 minutes , its stilll 2 grace periods , before and after , with a possible maximum considered to be 10 before and 11 after = 21 minutes in total
    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
    • llcomp2
    • By llcomp2 5th May 17, 5:09 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    llcomp2
    • #7
    • 5th May 17, 5:09 PM
    • #7
    • 5th May 17, 5:09 PM
    Does the NTK have a paragraph mentioning something like, "if after 29 days ..." or is there a blank space as if something is missing? An example of the latter is shown in the NEWBIES.

    All your appeal points are in template form in post 3 of the NEWBIES, but you need to send the initial BPA template in blue first to get the PoPLA code.

    So, initial template appeal now then research your PoPLA appeal afterwards.
    Originally posted by Fruitcake

    Great. Thank for your advice. Under the 'protection of freedoms act' it states after 29 days they have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charges from the keeper.

    Also, appeals need to be made within 28 days.

    Do Parking eye have a time limit they need to respond to appeals within?
    Last edited by llcomp2; 05-05-2017 at 5:24 PM.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 5th May 17, 5:14 PM
    • 14,735 Posts
    • 18,514 Thanks
    Redx
    • #8
    • 5th May 17, 5:14 PM
    • #8
    • 5th May 17, 5:14 PM
    for POFA to apply PE have to get the initial pcn to the keeper within 14 days

    the keeper has up to 28 days to appeal (using the blue text template) on their website , as KEEPER

    PE then have 14 days to acknowledge and 35 days to reply according to the BPA CoP (I suggest you download it and read it , carefully)
    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
    • llcomp2
    • By llcomp2 5th May 17, 5:24 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    llcomp2
    • #9
    • 5th May 17, 5:24 PM
    • #9
    • 5th May 17, 5:24 PM
    read my comments on the grace period aspect in these threads

    there are many more examples of this valid legal argument on the forum too

    now if we assume 6 minutes BEFORE the parking time starts , to enter, find a space , park up , read the signs , pay for a ticket and place it on the vehicle , plus over 10 minutes to leave the car park (11 minutes or more if delayed by circumstances beyond your control) , then 6 + 10 is within clause #13 of the BPA CoP , grace periods

    its a time before and a time after , not just time after

    plus add the other legal arguments as well

    so 11 minutes or 16 minutes , its stilll 2 grace periods , before and after , with a possible maximum considered to be 10 before and 11 after = 21 minutes in total
    Originally posted by Redx
    Thanks for this, I shall read over them in more detail. Just to clarify, if there was an overstay 12 mins after the ticket had expired, would combining the two grace periods still be a case to argue? I assume they would need proof of ticket purchase to claim that only the second grace period applys. (if it's not the case)

    Hope this makes sense!
    • Redx
    • By Redx 5th May 17, 5:28 PM
    • 14,735 Posts
    • 18,514 Thanks
    Redx
    you dont appear to have grasped the argument yet

    they are alleging that there is an overstay of say 12 minutes AFTER the ticket expired , so they have conveniently IGNORED the fact that a grace period applies BEFORE the ticket even started

    they monitor time on site , and compare it against the time paid for, so that means there is a discrepancy of 12 minutes (or 16 minutes overall)

    the BPA CoP states that 2 grace periods apply , it doesnt say how long the initial one is , but that OVER 10 minutes applies after the parking period ends (to leave the car park)

    so if you said 2 minutes to park up, read the signs and pay for a ticket , plus 10 minutes to leave, the combined total means the 12 minutes can be accounted for due to 2 grace periods applying

    remember, their cameras record time on site , they dont record the vehicle actually parking up , nor leaving , they compare time on site against time paid for

    their ANPR shows time on site at 16 minutes greater than the time paid for , but also the BPA CoP states that the allowed departure grace period is OVER 10 minutes (so does not specify an actual time period) , so any delay in getting out of that car park would add to the time before the camera clocks the vehicle leaving

    so if a traffic jam at the exit slowed this down and caused a 20 minute delay , it would still be allowed due to extenuating circumstances

    in the ivor pecheque court case, the judge ruled that driving round looking for a space was not "parking" , so leaving slowly would be the same

    ie:- you do not pay for "time on site" , you pay to park the car in a stationary mode in a parking bay (stopped) - they do not monitor this at all

    at the moment you are splitting hairs for no apparent reason

    it is their job to prove their case is valid , in law , this includes ensuring that their payment machines are accurate and also that the ANPR cameras are accurate too , and all for say 1 or 2 minutes only ?

    a ticket was bought and paid for that covered the stationary parking time , so no intention to defraud PE or the WYE VALLEY CENTRE , but maybe a bit slow to leave !!!
    Last edited by Redx; 05-05-2017 at 5:43 PM.
    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
    • llcomp2
    • By llcomp2 6th Jun 17, 2:07 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    llcomp2
    Thanks Redx.

    Turns out the appeal has been rejected on grounds that their records confirm no parking was purchased on the date of event, despite there being payment methods available on the day in question.

    I can confirm parking was paid for however there is no receipt for proof.

    Next steps to appeal to POPLA, any advice would be appreciated and I shall continue to read the advice on the forums.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 6th Jun 17, 2:14 PM
    • 14,735 Posts
    • 18,514 Thanks
    Redx
    if you look at the latest MSE news ( in the boxes over on the right >>>>>>>>>>> , and also in the last MSE email ) it clearly tells people why these tickets should be retained for a few months , so I suggest you and your friends and family read it , becasue your scenario is exactly why that advice was posted

    and read post #3 of the NEWBIES sticky thread and start drafting your popla appeal, based on what you find (not on what happened)
    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 6th Jun 17, 10:25 PM
    • 48,068 Posts
    • 61,519 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Next steps to appeal to POPLA, any advice would be appreciated and I shall continue to read the advice on the forums.
    Originally posted by llcomp2
    That's the step after the next one. Next step is to complain to the Wye Valley Visitors centre BEFORE you even try POPLA, as most landowners cancel these all the time (far easier, pre POPLA).
    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.

    • llcomp2
    • By llcomp2 7th Jun 17, 12:37 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    llcomp2
    Thanks Coupon-Mad.

    The driver originally phoned the Wye Valley Centre and the owner response was he wouldn't cancel this PCN and it is all dealt with by Parking Eye.

    Perhaps a formal letter might work,what do you think?

    P.s. The driver has luckily found a refund ticket which provides proof of paying for parking.
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 7th Jun 17, 1:30 PM
    • 967 Posts
    • 1,671 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    Who runs/owns the visitor centre?
    • llcomp2
    • By llcomp2 7th Jun 17, 1:42 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    llcomp2
    Who runs/owns the visitor centre?
    Originally posted by Loadsofchildren123
    Lindsay Heyes, I have found his Linkedin but not an email address as of yet.
    • Edna Basher
    • By Edna Basher 7th Jun 17, 1:47 PM
    • 540 Posts
    • 1,414 Thanks
    Edna Basher
    According to a witness statement in a recent PE Evidence pack for Wye Valley Visitor Centre, the landholders are two partners, Lindsay Robert Falcon Heyes and Edward Timothy Heyes. The witness statement was purportedly signed by the former.
    • llcomp2
    • By llcomp2 13th Jun 17, 12:18 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    llcomp2
    So I have decided to start drafting the POPLA appeal and not contact the landowners as they were very uncooperative over phone and on their website they have stated to contact ParkingEye over matters.

    If anybody can provide advice on this appeal I would greatly appreciate it, I've c&p most of the points from #3 NEWBIES sticky thread, bold parts are my own additions.


    I am the registered keeper and I am appealing this parking charge issued by ParkingEye Ltd at Wye Valley Visitor Centre Car Park.

    To protect the driver, they have not been named.


    1. Genuine paying customer

    There is very clear evidence below that proves the driver was a genuine paying customer using the facilities within Wye Valley Visitor Centre. The driver has directly spoken to the landowner who has confirmed records of the car parking ticket.

    ParkingEye have claimed their records confirm no parking was purchased on the date of the parking event, however the evidence below proves this otherwise.



    [Image of parking refund]


    2. Insufficient 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:
    13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go.
    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:

    The driver of the car at the time was captured by ANPR cameras driving into the car park at 10:55 and driving out at 15:11 on the same date, the driver paid for parking. In their appeal rejection letter, ParkingEye state that “no parking was purchased on the date.”

    It is very clear from the evidence that ParkingEye have failed to uphold the minimum grace periods set out in the BPA Code of Practice. BPA CoP states that the allowed departure grace period is over 10 minutes, a ticket was bought and paid for that covered the stationary parking time as the total time in the car park exceeded the paid period by minutes, therefore no intention to defraud PE or the Wye Valley Centre.


    Here is a link to the minutes of the Professional Development & Standards Board meeting from 30th July 2015 where it was formally agreed by the Board (of BPA members and stakeholders) that the minimum grace period would be changed in 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice to read 'a minimum of eleven minutes'

    Website link

    By any stretch of the imagination, these few minutes are well within what an ordinary independent person assessing the facts would consider reasonable. In fact this case demonstrates significant unreasonableness on the part of this notorious parking operator who appear to be attempting to get more and more 10/11 minute false 'overstay' allegations past POPLA this year, ignoring their Trade Body rules from the BPA.

    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:

    Website link

    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:

    Website link

    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:

    Website link

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

    Website 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:

    Website link

    ''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:

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

    As this operator 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

    Parking Eye has not provided any evidence to show that records confirm no parking was purchased and the driver has evidence of being a genuine paying customer. I respectfully request that you uphold this appeal based on the points raised above.
    Last edited by llcomp2; 13-06-2017 at 4:02 PM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Jun 17, 6:45 PM
    • 48,068 Posts
    • 61,519 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    [Image of parking refund]
    What does that actually show the VRN and the payment made and a refund of it for being a patron?

    Isn't this simply about a typo with the VRN? Or someone only putting in the numbers, not the whole VRN? If PE are saying no payment was made then they are saying no MATCHING payment was made.
    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.

    • llcomp2
    • By llcomp2 14th Jun 17, 9:44 AM
    • 11 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    llcomp2
    The receipt shows that a parking ticket had been handed in for a refund, it does not have any VRN.

    A parking ticket was paid for, and when contacting Wye Valley Visitor Centre they confirmed from computer records that a parking ticket was handed in with the cars VRN on (no mention about being an incorrect VRN).

    Do you have any suggestions for what to do?
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

384Posts Today

3,645Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Byebye! I'm about to stop work & twitter, to instead spend glorious time with Mrs & mini MSE. Wishing u a lovely summer. See u in 10 days.

  • WARNING Did you start Uni in or after 2012? The interest's rising to 6.1%; yet it doesnt work like you think. See https://t.co/IQ8f0Vyetu RT

  • RT @JanaBeee: @MartinSLewis Boris is the anomaly (coffee), the others are versions of normal (beer). Lots of same candidates = vote share d?

  • Follow Martin