Parking Eye Parking Charge Notice

NeoMagic

Hey all, sorry to drag up a topic that's commonly discussed on all the boards but theres so much information and advice out there it's become somewhat confusing for me to know how I should proceed.

Firstly I'll describe what happened, A car that belongs to me over heated on the M3 and someone had to get off the motorway, they managed to limp the car to Fleet Services. They drove all the way round to the Shell Garage (southbound) where they parked up (in the garage not the car park) and waited for Green Flag to turn up. Green Flag took about two and a half hours to arrive. After they turned up and carried out their thing the driver was on their way again about three hours after they rolled in to the services.

Two weeks later I get a Parking Charge Notice EYE01 from Parking Eye dated 04/07/2013.. Which happens to be in the future?? lol...

Anyway It's alleged my vehicle overstayed the 2 hours FREE parking by an hour..

I've been reluctant to contact them and explain the circumstances as I'd be entering a dispute of which I don't even think I legally have to..

Either way I wanted your views on how I should proceed?

Should I ignore it? Should I raise an appeal through POPLA or is there some other avenue I should go down..?

Thank you for your time.

Cheers, Neo

bazster

Dear Scammers

The keeper rejects all liability for this charge on the following grounds:

(i) the Notice to Keeper is invalid; specifically it is dated 4/7/2013, which is next Thursday. Have you perhaps acquired a TARDIS? Anyhoo, the invalid NtK means that there is no keeper liability, so you've blown it.
(ii) the keeper's vehicle was never in your poxy car park anyway; between the times when you allege it was there it was actually broken down in the Shell filling station, but of course you couldn't know that because all you've got to go on is a couple of stupid entry and exit photographs.

No further correspondence will be entered into so you may as well cancel the charge, but if you want to make even bigger fools of yourselves then send me a POPLA code. Your failure to do so will indicate your acceptance of this challenge.

So long suckers,

The Keeper

edward123

.....he he....that's the best one yet. Sarcasm is called for yet dead accurate to boot!

NeoMagic

Love it! I think I'll construct myself a letter and send it off in the morning, recorded delivery?

bazster

NeoMagic wrote: »

Love it! I think I'll construct myself a letter and send it off in the morning, recorded delivery?

No, don't send it recorded, just get a proof of posting and keep a copy of the letter. These scum are not above refusing recorded delivery mail so they can deny having received it, but if it just looks like an ordinary letter they will open it eagerly hoping to find a big fat cheque enclosed. Imagine the disappointment on their poor little faces...

If you are going to have a bash at your own letter the crucial thing is to studiously avoid any mention of who was driving.

NeoMagic

Cheers Bazter, I will construct something along the lines of your recommendation (with some sarcasm to boot) ha! I shan't divulge the drivers information at any time, though doesn't it not make any difference anymore as I read about some law being passed in December 2012 that means the registered keeper can in fact be made liable now?

spacey2012

You can never be liable for a scam.

PS: Keep the envelope it came in.

bazster

NeoMagic wrote: »

Cheers Bazter, I will construct something along the lines of your recommendation (with some sarcasm to boot) ha! I shan't divulge the drivers information at any time, though doesn't it not make any difference anymore as I read about some law being passed in December 2012 that means the registered keeper can in fact be made liable now?

Yes, that's correct about the law, BUT the law is very (and I mean VERY) pernickity about what a Notice to Keeper must contain, and if the Notice to Keeper is invalid (as yours is) then that's a slam-dunk: they can no longer hold the keeper liable.

BUT BUT BUT, they could still hold the driver liable if they knew who that was. So, they've shot their bolt as regards holding you, the keeper, liable, and if you make sure they don't know who was driving then they can't get at the driver either.

spacey2012

I am not a fan of POPLA as it refuses to use case law in making decisions.
However on such an occasion I could not resist.

Keep the Envelope and scam letter together, then simply write:
parking charge number xxxxxxxxxxx
The registered keep denies liability, cancel the charge or send a Popla code.
Yours The registered keeper at the address you wrote to.
sign nothing
Leave them to work out why.
Let "Shona" at popla see who she is dealing with.
A bunch of dimwit scammers who do not even know what day it is.

Coupon-mad

bazster wrote: »

Dear Scammers

The keeper rejects all liability for this charge on the following grounds:

(i) the Notice to Keeper is invalid; specifically it is dated 4/7/2013, which is next Thursday. Have you perhaps acquired a TARDIS? Anyhoo, the invalid NtK means that there is no keeper liability, so you've blown it.
(ii) the keeper's vehicle was never in your poxy car park anyway; between the times when you allege it was there it was actually broken down in the Shell filling station, but of course you couldn't know that because all you've got to go on is a couple of stupid entry and exit photographs.

No further correspondence will be entered into so you may as well cancel the charge, but if you want to make even bigger fools of yourselves then send me a POPLA code. Your failure to do so will indicate your acceptance of this challenge.

So long suckers,

The Keeper

I like that!

As you know I favour a dollop of sarcasm now with some of he more daft and hopeless PPC rip-off fake PCNs. I like to think of Shona or Matthew at POPLA laughing at the first challenge wording (like with Parking Prankster cases) then reading the POPLA submission and finding in the motorist's favour.

spacey2012

Pointing out the mistake gives them an opportunity to quash it.
A very simple denied liability and let POPLA at it with a popla appeal demanding they produce the time machine they used to issue the ticket.