Parking Eye sent me a bill for parking in the street

da_rule

The lottery is leaning more in the favour of the motorist though if the appeals advice is followed. This forum has a perfect POPLA appeal record and gets PCN's cancelled. Also, judges are becoming increasingly aware of this 'scam' and are finding in the motorists favour more and more.

sharealike

da_rule wrote: »

The lottery is leaning more in the favour of the motorist though if the appeals advice is followed. This forum has a perfect POPLA appeal record and gets PCN's cancelled. Also, judges are becoming increasingly aware of this 'scam' and are finding in the motorists favour more and more.

Agree it looks that way but only ever so slightly when you look at the number of PCN's paid without a thought. Those poor folk are the true victims. Bet less than 1% look here or similar places for a clue.
PE took six months to send me a POPLA ref. Even though I requested one five days after their first letter arrived. How many would remember events clearly enough to make a sound appeal that long after?
I was lucky as had it confirmed I was in the public street. Not on private land. POPLA is for appeals about parking on private land, hence the name -


Parking On Private Land Appeals.


Appealing to POPLA could admit you were on private land when in fact you were not. PE's two picture evidence does not show you on the private land. And that is all they have. It just assumes you have been because of where they claim the pictures were taken and the times. I suggest you get PE to confirm what the boundaries of the land are before you appeal to POPLA. Make this request as you fill in the web form when first writing to PE. And ask for a picture or any proof showing you parked on the private land in between the times they show. This should make them search all the film from first to last picture but they would not have time nor would they have the recording. Copy and paste to a document you keep yourself of that first contact you make. It puts your evidence on their system that you might never see again. If they don't confirm this with a drawing or very accurate description then that could also be part of your appeal to POPLA at a later date.

da_rule

Whilst I see what you're saying about Private Land etc, POPLA have the power to compel the parking companies to cancel PCN's, and one of the standard appeal points is that it is not relevant land, as set out by the Protection of Freedoms Act. This could be expanded to mean that the incident actually happened on public land, not private.

Also, in terms of remembering what happened, that kind of is the genius of the POPLA templates. As POPLA don't accept mitigation, what happened on the day is kind of irrelevant. The legal arguments are far more important (no pre-estimate of loss, not relevant land etc).

Unfortunately, it is hard to make people aware of how easy these PCN's are to challenge and how much of a scam this really is. And, as you say, many people will pay because they think that it is a genuine 'fine' etc.

Coupon-mad

Ignore the offer letter shown here, but I wanted to show you an example of a letter that I wrote for someone to send to the Court mentioning the Cambridge test case and asking for the case to be stayed and heard by POPLA instead:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/65223965#Comment_65223965

Would you believe, it worked - but the OP has just already paid £80 to settle it (interesting thread if he gets it refunded & rewound to POPLA due to the Court Order!). So, I am not saying send PE an Offer. I am saying send that letter to the Court (and a copy to PE).

You could put it with your defence bundle or send it before, right now this coming week. I hope your defence is robust and based on the examples we linked you to at first, mentioning no GPEOL and no standing, contract with landowner etc.?

ampersand

sharealike wrote: »

....
Now someone else I know has a fake charge sent to them. This for riding a motor cycle through one of these car parks. Even though it does not display a number plate to the front and one of the cameras there relies on this as indication you went in or out??? A young person just starting out in the world of work and driving, the hole in their petrol budget for the year will put them off the road. Which means they do not get to work, which means they have no means to pay.

###
op - you are guiding them to this site, I sincerely hope, to ensure that 'the hole in their petrol budget for the year'DOES NOT HAPPEN.

sharealike

And the latest on my case.


PE have written to offer to drop the case. Prepared to "discontinue" on grounds it would cost them too much to attend.


In return they want me to agree I would not claim for my expenses.


Is this a trick? I would have no way of knowing if the case would go ahead. Ringing the court gets permanent engaged tone from the department I need. Surely PE are going to have to prove to me they have dropped the case. How can they do that.


Last thing I want is to accept their offer to find they never discontinued the case, that it can come back another day, or that the case was heard without me because I took their offer.


Sorry if I sound so suspicious of them, but too little of what they have written in the past holds any truth. They do just (and in some cases have already done) the opposite of what they write.

bod1467

If they haven't put Without Prejudice on the letter then you could show it in court together with your acceptance (if they actually did go ahead). PE would get thrown out on their ear.

And you couldn't not know about the case (unless you received no letters from the Court about the hearing - they don't come from PE).

Coupon-mad

Yep does it say 'without prejudice?'

This is a first, except for Shaw Gallen's case linked in the cases won in the NEWBIES thread!

sharealike

It says "without prejudice as to save costs"


Just as any other man in the street I don't understand what these words really mean. The offer is nothing other than a trick to get me to hold off my final preparations for the hearing. And perhaps get me thinking I don't have to turn up at court. Are the costs they wish to save mine or theirs? My defence has not changed since the very start. Why after all the farce they created do they decide its now too expensive to turn up at court with the right people? Surely a judge would not be that impressed by such tactics. What ever words they might use to hide the truth.


Just managed to speak to the court. People do exist there to confirm things one way or another. Case is still on the list to be heard by the court. I won't be standing down until I hear it from the court its been discontinued.

DW190

sharealike wrote: »

It says "without prejudice as to save costs"


Just as any other man in the street I don't understand what these words really mean. The offer is nothing other than a trick to get me to hold off my final preparations for the hearing. And perhaps get me thinking I don't have to turn up at court. Are the costs they wish to save mine or theirs? My defence has not changed since the very start. Why after all the farce they created do they decide its now too expensive to turn up at court with the right people? Surely a judge would not be that impressed by such tactics. What ever words they might use to hide the truth.


Just managed to speak to the court. People do exist there to confirm things one way or another. Case is still on the list to be heard by the court. I won't be standing down until I hear it from the court its been discontinued.

You will not hear it from the Court unless you accept their offer to Discontinue.
They've had a bit of a hammering in Court recently and are attempting to mitigate their losses.