Another Parking Eye question

bazster

markfj wrote: »

Hopefully this will work

I cant understand though, if she was to appeal the ticket, what exactly would she be appealing it for, they're right in the sense she was 1.5 hours over the 3hr max stay

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/markfj/img007_zps42c2d888.jpg

You are missing the point. It's not about winning the appeal. It's irrelevant whether you win or not, since you don't have to pay and you're not going to pay regardless. The point is to get your own back on the scammers by putting the company to hassle and expense.

My advice would be to appeal to Parking Spy on some utterly pathetic grounds (e.g. the that charge is "unfair" or something similarly feeble), and then, when they reject your appeal and give you the necessary info about appealing to POPLA, come back here and get some help writing a detailed appeal based on all the legal reasons why the charge is unenforceable. At this stage we don't know how POPLA will react to such an appeal, but even if they dismiss it you will at least have shown them up to be the sham we suspect them to be - and since the appeal result is not binding on you, you can then ignore everything else Parking Spy sends to you.

devonlad

so is that freddom letter allowed to be posted to people then??

RENEGADE_2

There is a way you can make a representation to the operator without using the word "appeal" AND without revealing the identity of the driver. But remember one thing: "Parking charge" and "Ticket" are both ambiguous terms in the absence of their preferred but unlawful term "penalty". A parking charge can be what was not paid to park such as for the ticket from the Pay & Display box - or a parking charge can be the de facto penalty issued by means of attaching a ticket to the windscreen. If it weren't for this ambiguity and different terms exsted, BPA would be stuffed in its claim that a parking charge is payable, but to seek the parking charge is very much within their legal rights.

So, Letter 1:

Dear Mr. ParkingEye

Thank you for your invoice explaining to me the circumstances surrounding an alleged claim by your company for a matter which directly concerns my vehicle. Subject to the Protection of Freedoms Bill 2012, it is my responsibility as registered keeper to investigate the matter and such, I have done.

Following a detailed examination and analysis of both the alleged event and the legal framework regarding the affair, I conclude that your demand of £85.00 does not reflect losses to your client and therefore can only be taken as a punitive gesture by you the operator. To this end I deny your claim and declare an immediate end to this case. Take note that if you believe the figure you charge to be a true calculation of your client's deficit, you are invited to take the matter to adjudication.

Your application has been perused carefully and the decision by me is final. If you are unhappy with the content of this communication and are not prepared to resolve the matter through court, please seek legal advice.

Yours sincerely
The RK

RENEGADE_2

Letter 2

Dear Grandma (Mrs. Popla)
Unique reference number from PakingSpy: W3-4RE-5HIT-8AG5

As the reference makes you aware, I was issued a charge of £85 by ParkingEye for an alleged contravention concerning my vehicle on the private land of this operator's client.

Upon investigation, I dismissed the claim by ParkingEye as I failed to make the connection between the alleged action and their arrival at the egregious figure of £85. It is my verdict that this demand is a de facto penalty and the notion that it represents the client's deficit is absurd.

To this end, I am writing to affirm my original position that this is an unlawful claim and thereby will not assist the operator further on the matter. I contend that if the client believes his demand remains payable then he may seek to resolve the matter via adjudication.

I thank you for handling the case and hope that you will investigate this and all other illicit practices by ParkingEye with the view of elliminating such actions for future occurrences.

Yours faithfully
The RK

RENEGADE_2

And if Letter 2 by rejected by Grandma, you merely revert to the pre-October policy which is to ignore, ignore and ignore!

See? No "appeal", no naming of driver, no denial of incident and no admitting it either, remember at all times to apply the word "alleged" before anything pertaining to the opposition.

devonlad

well ren i need to get as clued up as you guys. I get a computer and internet at the end of this month so i can contribute more.

bazster

Anyone who wants to force this to POPLA and cost Parking Spy £27+VAT would be ill advised to write to Parking Spy on the lines suggested above. Faced with a punter who clearly knows the legal position and clearly has no intention of paying, a PPC would be well advised to cut its losses and allow the appeal in order to save itself the POPLA fee.

Anyone who wants to force it to POPLA should make their "appeal" to the PPC as useless as possible by making out that they are a complete dumbo who hasn't a clue about any of this. Save the good stuff for POPLA.

The_Slithy_Tove

RENEGADE wrote: »

... Subject to the Protection of Freedoms Bill 2012 ...

One correction, it's the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

Coupon-mad

bazster wrote: »

Anyone who wants to force this to POPLA and cost Parking Spy £27+VAT would be ill advised to write to Parking Spy on the lines suggested above. Faced with a punter who clearly knows the legal position and clearly has no intention of paying, a PPC would be well advised to cut its losses and allow the appeal in order to save itself the POPLA fee.

Anyone who wants to force it to POPLA should make their "appeal" to the PPC as useless as possible by making out that they are a complete dumbo who hasn't a clue about any of this. Save the good stuff for POPLA.

I agree, do a generic 'nothing' appeal, again not saying who was driving but just something like 'I don't see why customers of Dunelm Mill (or whoever) should be fined like this for shopping, please can you cancel it?'

trisontana

Coupon you've you the "f" word! Or was that intentional?