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
    • blueberrymunchkin
    • By blueberrymunchkin 11th Jul 17, 6:59 AM
    • 5Posts
    • 6Thanks
    blueberrymunchkin
    ParkingEye PCN - need help on POPLA appeal
    • #1
    • 11th Jul 17, 6:59 AM
    ParkingEye PCN - need help on POPLA appeal 11th Jul 17 at 6:59 AM
    Hi guys,
    Firstly thank you so much for the Newbies Thread and everything else with it!!! I've already managed to get one ticket IPC PCN cancelled earlier this year with some shopping receipts and the Newbies thread. I've now got one to deal with for my mum which is a ParkingEye PCN.

    I have sent the appeal to ParkingEye on her behalf and got a POPLA ref number. I have followed Newbies thread strictly and not named the driver. My mum has contacted Morrisons and received a reply saying they have nothing to do with it and she has to pay. Mum cant find any receipts from the day in question.

    I believe the ticket does not say 'POFA/keeper liability after 29 days' but the format has changed just slightly from the one you posted in thread 3 from Newbies (see below). There is no blank space now but it seems they have changed the format slightly but I still cant find the wording you suggest anywhere. Also the date on the PCN is 32 days after the parking date.

    Mum cant remember much about the day as it was a month previously but reckons the ticket machines were out of order and have been for months. I've told her I can get it cancelled but im a bit nervous now we reached POPLA and im asking for help advice on the draft appeal ive put together...
    Thanks!!!

    Dear POPLA,

    PCN Number: XXX
    POPLA Verification Code: XXX

    I am writing to you to lodge a formal appeal against a parking charge notice sent to myself as registered keeper of the vehicle in question. I was NOT the driver.

    I contend that I am not liable for this parking charge on the basis of the below points:

    1) ParkingEye's Parking Charge Notice is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the dates and the wording used.
    2) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.
    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) No evidence of Landowner Authority


    1) ParkingEye's Parking Charge Notice is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the dates and the wording used.

    Under schedule 4, paragraph 4 of the POFA, an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle if certain conditions must be met as stated in paragraphs 5, 6, 11, and 12. ParkingEye have failed to fulfil the conditions which state that an operator must have provided the keeper with a Notice to Keeper (NTK) in accordance with paragraph 9, which stipulates as mandatory, a set timeline and wording:-

    The notice must be given by -
    (a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or
    (b) sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.


    The applicable section here is (b) because the Parking Charge Notice/NTK that I have received was delivered by post. Furthermore, paragraph 9(5) states:

    ’’The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended’’

    The Parking Charge Notice sent to myself as Registered Keeper was produced in their offices (never actually posted on that day, as is well known) showing a ‘date issued’ of 23/06/2017. This is 32 days after the alleged event, shown as 22/05/2017.

    This means that ParkingEye have failed to act within the 14 day relevant period. Furthermore, it is clear that ParkingEye know this because they have used an alternative version of their template ‘Parking Charge Notice’, which gives no reference to ‘keeper liability’ or the POFA.

    So, this is a charge that could only be potentially enforced against a known driver and there is no evidence of who that individual was - and that person was not me.



    2) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact 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.

    Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay, not by POPLA, nor the operator, nor even in court.

    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 charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a POFA-compliant NTK. Only full compliance with Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence that a keeper was the driver) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed by POPLA to be the liable party. The burden of proof rests with the Operator, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, 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.

    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.''


    No lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from a keeper, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA. This exact finding was made in a very similar case with the same style NTK in 6061796103 v 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.''



    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:

    <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:


    <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:


    <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>

    ''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) No evidence of Landowner Authority

    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 ParkingEye 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


    Therefore, it is respectfully requested that this parking charge notice appeal be allowed and the appeal should be upheld on every point.

    Yours faithfully,
Page 1
    • blueberrymunchkin
    • By blueberrymunchkin 11th Jul 17, 7:06 AM
    • 5 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    blueberrymunchkin
    • #2
    • 11th Jul 17, 7:06 AM
    • #2
    • 11th Jul 17, 7:06 AM
    sorry cant post an image of the parking ticket new format?
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 11th Jul 17, 7:31 AM
    • 40,304 Posts
    • 80,497 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    • #3
    • 11th Jul 17, 7:31 AM
    • #3
    • 11th Jul 17, 7:31 AM
    This can be easily cancelled by emailing the CEO of Morrisons. It works every time. Do a search on this forum for Morrisons CEO's email address.
    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
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 11th Jul 17, 7:33 AM
    • 14,514 Posts
    • 22,811 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #4
    • 11th Jul 17, 7:33 AM
    • #4
    • 11th Jul 17, 7:33 AM
    On a skim read:

    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.
    Given that you are appealing against ParkingEye, you need to be absolutely certain that you've got this section correct.

    If the PE signage in your parking event was so dissimilar to that specific sign in Beavis, then you're ok with what you've written. If you have a photo of a sign from the site which shows the parking charge in tiny font, embedding that photo in your appeal will help you.

    4) ANPR Accuracy and Compliance
    This is 'old hat' now, never seen it sway a POPLA decision, but in terms of 'bulking out' your appeal, I'd relegate it to your final appeal point.

    In general, try to embed evidence into your appeal, screenshots rather than a list of links to various websites. This breaks up your appeal into a more readable format rather than just pages of text only, contains everything, as far as possible, in the one document and saves the assessor having to chase around the internet. Try to get the assessor 'on your side' by making things as easy as possible for them. Remember they are having to read these behemoth sized appeals day after day. Making their task a little less onerous in your case can't do you any harm.

    When submitting your appeal, convert your Word document into a .pdf file and attach to the appeal portal using 'OTHER' from the dropdown box. Add a cross reference to your POPLA verification code and a 'please see attached appeal' in the actual portal dialogue box.

    Appeal point 1 is your winner on this (I'm assuming you haven't blindly copied and pasted someone else's appeal here, and the dates and the omission of the PoFA paragraph from your NtK apply to your specific case).

    If you've got some time before your POPLA deadline, leave this up for any further comment from regulars for a short while. But don't miss your POPLA deadline.
    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.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th Jul 17, 5:43 PM
    • 49,944 Posts
    • 63,358 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #5
    • 11th Jul 17, 5:43 PM
    • #5
    • 11th Jul 17, 5:43 PM
    My mum has contacted Morrisons and received a reply saying they have nothing to do with it and she has to pay. Mum cant find any receipts from the day in question.
    Originally posted by blueberrymunchkin
    Get it cancelled this week by emailing a 'narked customers, how dare you harass my Mum' complaint to Morrisons.

    These ones are so easy and this email addy works:

    donotreply@morrisonsplc.co.uk

    If you and Mum have any bank statements or receipts from ANY weeks then include them to show genuine patronage (or a Match & More card). If not, just complain to that email addy, even though you were already knocked back, try that one.

    It works even without receipts and they always cancel at Head Office, usually within a week.

    Do that BEFORE using the POPLA code, to stop PE bleating that it's ''too late to cancel'' or some such utter drivel.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 11-07-2017 at 5:46 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • blueberrymunchkin
    • By blueberrymunchkin 11th Jul 17, 10:51 PM
    • 5 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    blueberrymunchkin
    • #6
    • 11th Jul 17, 10:51 PM
    • #6
    • 11th Jul 17, 10:51 PM
    Thank you for all the suggestions. Mum has said she only called the store rather than sending email/letter, so I have done as suggested and sent an email to the CEO of Morrisons. Fingers crossed its as easy as predicted.
    Cheers!
    • blueberrymunchkin
    • By blueberrymunchkin 18th Jul 17, 8:21 PM
    • 5 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    blueberrymunchkin
    • #7
    • 18th Jul 17, 8:21 PM
    • #7
    • 18th Jul 17, 8:21 PM
    Yippee! Finally got a reply and its a great result! Thank you! My mum is over the moon!

    Here is the email address that replied: customerservice@morrisonsplc.co.uk

    Good morning xxxxx,

    I am pleased to confirm that we have issued instructions for this Parking Charge Notice to be cancelled.

    Unfortunately due to the abuse we have on these car parks we have to have these controls in place but we are happy to look at, and cancel where necessary.

    Thank you once again for getting in touch and please come back and see us soon.

    Kind regards,

    Mobeen Hussain
    Customer Assistant
    Wm Morrisons Supermarket Plc
    ref:_00DD0ojDb._500D01UjJRF:ref
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 18th Jul 17, 8:24 PM
    • 49,944 Posts
    • 63,358 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #8
    • 18th Jul 17, 8:24 PM
    • #8
    • 18th Jul 17, 8:24 PM
    Bingo!

    Easy, wasn't it...

    Forgive us if we briefly say - we say I told you so! As well as saying HOORAY!

    Of course it seems Morrisons MIGHT (allegedly) really want to say:

    ''Unfortunately due to the aggressive parking firm that some suited waste-of-space idiot here in Head Office signed Morrisons up to, for up to FIVE years with no right to veto any court claims against our poor customers(!), we are happy to look at, and cancel these horrendously greedy 'charges' every time any customer complains, even without a receipt. Please tell other customers, we do not want this to happen to anyone but can't (yet) get rid of Parking Eye.

    Please come back to us...pleeeeease...!''
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 18-07-2017 at 8:29 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • blueberrymunchkin
    • By blueberrymunchkin 18th Jul 17, 8:26 PM
    • 5 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    blueberrymunchkin
    • #9
    • 18th Jul 17, 8:26 PM
    • #9
    • 18th Jul 17, 8:26 PM
    Thanks again Coupon-mad! So relieved not to go down the POPLA route. Keep up the amazing work with this thread topic
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

4,363Posts Today

8,757Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Shana tova umetuka - a sweet Jewish New Year to all celebrating. I won't be online the rest of t'week, as I take the time to be with family

  • Dear Steve. Please note doing a poll to ask people's opinion does not in itself imply an opinion! https://t.co/UGvWlMURxy

  • Luciana is on the advisory board of @mmhpi (we have MPs from most parties) https://t.co/n99NAxGAAQ

  • Follow Martin