New Parking Eye charge notice

JagDriver

I think you have to appeal to them first. Then they send the rejection (Guaranteed). That should have the POO-PLA instructions on it. Appeal on the basis of the 'over £100' charge (forget the 'discount' - the charge is supposed to be an accurate pre-estimate of losses so any discount makes that look duff).

Once rejected appeal again to POO-PLA with the same argument. We don't know what happens next as this is a new process. Keep the powder dry on the other thing.

Unless you want a quiet life, in which case just ignore them from here on.

BTW I think they (BPA) may be orchestrating things behind the scenes to present a 'good' face to DVLA etc ATM, so careful how you go, notice how we're not getting as many OP's since 1st Oct?

please_help_my_daughter

Thank you jagdriver, I think I will play it safe and ignore, I have told her just to give me all her letters she gets (about 5/6 Ive heard) as she gets scared so I will just read and file them. Thanks

bazster

JagDriver wrote: »

I think you have to appeal to them first. Then they send the rejection (Guaranteed). That should have the POO-PLA instructions on it. Appeal on the basis of the 'over £100' charge (forget the 'discount' - the charge is supposed to be an accurate pre-estimate of losses so any discount makes that look duff).

Once rejected appeal again to POO-PLA with the same argument. We don't know what happens next as this is a new process. Keep the powder dry on the other thing.

Unless you want a quiet life, in which case just ignore them from here on.

BTW I think they (BPA) may be orchestrating things behind the scenes to present a 'good' face to DVLA etc ATM, so careful how you go, notice how we're not getting as many OP's since 1st Oct?

This is all true, BUT the POFA requires the original notice to describe any independent appeals service that is available, regardless of whether you need to "appeal" to the scum first. If it fails to do so then it's not correctly served and RK liability no longer applies.

bazster

PHMD, JAgDriver is correct. To summarise:

(i) Feel free to ignore the whole thing if you wish. She'll get a few nasty letters, it will not go any further - but even if it did you have an Exocet missile up your sleeve which is that she is not old enough to have entered into a contract.

(ii) If you want to have some fun with them (bearing in mind that if you can drag them to POPLA it'll cost them £27+VAT, plus a certain amount of hassle):

- appeal to Parking Eye. Make the grounds of your appeal something utterly feeble that they are bound to reject, keep your big guns hidden.

- when they reject your appeal, they will offer you the chance to appeal to POPLA. Do so, on the grounds that a charge of £125 breaches the British Parking Association Code of Practice.

POPLA might allow your appeal, in which case you just cost Parking Eye £27+VAT, as well as putting them in the position of having to reduce their charges.

On the other hand, they might refuse your appeal, in which case you've still cost them £27+VAT, but you can just ignore everything they send you thereafter. If you are lucky they will file a case against your daughter in the County Court, which will cost them even more money and which you can get struck out before it goes to a hearing on the grounds that there is no contract (because of your daughter's age) and hence no cause of action.

Or, as stated, if you can't be bothered with the hassle of rubbing their noses in it, just ignore everything.

dggar

Just as a thought:

If a RK gets a posting saying "who was driving the car etc." and they reply
" it was my son/daughter/niece/nephew/young person who lives next door etc.
and by the way they are 17yrs old"

would there be any burdon of proof placed on the RK.

taffy056

No unless they take it to court, there is nothing in their scam that says a dob is needed. So if they want to see it first they must refuse any appeal go through popla which is so narrow in their appeal points that this will probably be refused, then go to the small claims where it will immediately thrown out.

please_help_my_daughter

Thank you all for your help so far. Having checked the charge again she was actually parked there on 25th September 2012 but the ticket was issued on 5th October 2012 I dont no if this makes any difference or not. She also says that she parked there 2 more times before she received the charge and that it is a 24/7 charging period and she should of paid a couple of pound each time. At this moment in time shes only had 1 charge so far, is it still ok to ignore or not as ive said to her dad that im going to ignore it but hes said she should pay it as her case is different as she should of paid something to park there! Am i still correct to ignore it and if it does go to court what is the worse case sinario i should expect? Thank you and sorry about the 20 page essay!!

Fergie76

Just ignore, if it goes to court the worse that can happen is nothing. A minor (in the eyes of the law) can't enter into a legal contract. Therefore, no contract was made and no fee/invoice/penalty payable.

taffy056

Well as its prior to Oct 1st you have an option, ignore it completely which works , or pop them an email stating that the driver is under 18 so therefor not liable as she cannot enter to any contract with them. If they continue to chase her for money as I mentioned report them to the dvla, bpa, police , trading standards and get the press involved.

Coupon-mad

please_help_my_daughter wrote: »

Thank you all for your help so far. Having checked the charge again she was actually parked there on 25th September 2012 but the ticket was issued on 5th October 2012 I dont no if this makes any difference or not. She also says that she parked there 2 more times before she received the charge and that it is a 24/7 charging period and she should of paid a couple of pound each time. At this moment in time shes only had 1 charge so far, is it still ok to ignore or not as ive said to her dad that im going to ignore it but hes said she should pay it as her case is different as she should of paid something to park there! Am i still correct to ignore it and if it does go to court what is the worse case sinario i should expect? Thank you and sorry about the 20 page essay!!

Her Dad is wrong to think she should pay the extortionate charge, her case is not particularly different - in that it's still a fake PCN like any other, and she should ignore it. NO-ONE SHOULD EVER PAY A FAKE PCN - ONLY THE COUNCIL, TFL, TRAIN OPERATOR OR POLICE CAN ISSUE A PENALTY FOR PARKING.

If there is a way of offering the daily charge to the retailer then she can do so, in the form of a letter with a postal order or cheque. Maybe the registered keeper could do that, saying that it was an inexperienced driver who did not realise a P&D amount was due. State that this the the full & final offer and no additional fees or charges from them or their agents will be entertained - and the registered keeper asserts that he/she is not actually liable anyway.

Personally I would NOT write to the PPC at all, would not offer them the P&D amount, only the onsite real company. And do not name the driver at all, do not say 'my daughter' just 'an inexperienced driver did not see any signs' would be good as it also denies any signage being seen.

That way if ever it did go to small claims (very rare!!) you could show the judge a copy of the offer you made in good time to the principal company onsite (the only ones who could possibly have claimed any 'loss'). Even if the cheque is returned, keep it as proof that the offer was made and when, which gives you a very very good position legally.

There are loads of other defence points which would make a small claim attempt by a PPC practically impossible to win if defended by you/the keeper. We can help if that happens - and the worst case scenario is that the driver pays the charge plus costs which could be about £50 (there's a very low costs ceiling for small claims, no barrister's fees or anything can be applied!).

I can't see a judge ordering a then-17 yr old to pay when a reasonable offer was made by the registered keeper - and in any case if you never name the driver the PPC won't ever know who she was - so they are scuppered.

99.9% of fake PCNs just result in the usual threatograms to the registered keeper - who is that and are they ready & waiting to play their game of snap with the letters? They must not get scared by debt collector rubbish template letters or 'solicitor' headed notepaper. It really is just a well-known letter chain that leads to nothing.

Play snap as each letter matches the third from top thread 'PPC letter chains'. Refer to those preview pictures now and watch the Watchdog clip as well.