Parking Eye Letter Before Action

wallmap

Hi, wonder if you can help with advice please?
As the registered keeper I recently received a Letter Before Action from Parking Eye for overstaying on a free car park monitored by them.
Previous to this I received the
- Parking Charge Notice
- Reminder
- Outstanding amount due
All in quick succession.

As it happens on this day I was not the driver but the passenger.

I have ignored these letters, as last year I received a charge from Parking Eye from a different car park and read threads on the forum and as I've seen coupon mad say I played snap with the letters that I received as well as not acknowledging when they called my phone.

Unfortunately I didn't come back here to check the latest advice when I got this recent new charge and as their approach seems to have changed and moved swiftly I was wondering what I should do now, as I'm worried I'm going to receive court papers?

Many thanks in advance

Kite2010

You might get court papers, you might not.

So ignore it unless you get court papers, then a defence can be entered.

Is it a large german shop chain which sounds a bit like audi?

Umkomaas

Quick question before we go any further - was the date of receipt the first letter (PCN) within 14 days of the parking event. Yes or No, no need for dates, but if No, how many days between event and PCN?

Coupon-mad

Do tell us if the Notice to Keeper was received within 14 days!

And read these threads which give advice about responding to a Letter before Action (of course) and naming the driver to rewind the appeal clock for the DRIVER:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/62010303#Comment_62010303

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4689541

HTH

wallmap

Hi, Thanks I'll have a look at the threads re driver.

In answer to questions,
- it was a retail park - free parking for 3 hours, first time there, didn't check

- can't say for sure if I received it within 14 days, although the letters are certainly dated as though I did

This letter chain is different - no final notice, no debt collectors, no notice of intended litigation

wallmap

Morning
Having read a few more threads can I confirm that I should not ignore this Letter Before Action from Parking Eye (it does say further action WILL be taken)?
- Should I use the letter posted by Stroma to notify them of the keeper? Is this ok even though the driver is a member of the family and same address and is this purely to reset the clock to go to popla?
- we did over stay the free parking limit, what grounds for appeal will I use when we receive the letter to driver or am I jumping ahead?
Is seems strange to make contact with Parking Eye when I managed to ignore them successfully in the past!
Thanks again.

Hovite_2

wallmap wrote: »

Morning
Having read a few more threads can I confirm that I should not ignore this Letter Before Action from Parking Eye (it does say further action WILL be taken)?
- Should I use the letter posted by Stroma to notify them of the keeper? Is this ok even though the driver is a member of the family and same address and is this purely to reset the clock to go to popla?
- we did over stay the free parking limit, what grounds for appeal will I use when we receive the letter to driver or am I jumping ahead?
Is seems strange to make contact with Parking Eye when I managed to ignore them successfully in the past!
Thanks again.

Yes, use Storma's letter. Once you've informed Parking Eye they have no right to chase you and they have to start the process with the driver.

Once the driver gets their letter then come back here for examples of how to word the initial Parking Eye appeal and then POPLA.

With POPLA you will be appealing on a whole host of reasons.

bazster

Parking Eye has come up with a new tactic and is filing court claims in hundreds, maybe thousands. Up to you whether you take the risk, but there is a possibility that you will get one of these, although the risk is hard to quantify.

They already know who the keeper is. If you now notify them who the driver was then they can no longer pursue the keeper and must start all over again with the driver. The first thing they must do is to send a Notice to the driver. The driver can then challenge this with Parking Eye. The challenge will most likely be rejected, whereupon the driver can appeal to POPLA and very likely win.

When the Notice to Driver arrives, you can send in a "soft" appeal specifying some ground or other, doesn't really matter 'cos they'll reject it anyway. Lots of examples of such letters around the forum.

When it comes to POPLA it's all the usual stuff:

- No contract
- PE has no authority
- No loss/unenforceable penalty
- Unfair contract terms
- inadequate signage

...and so on and so forth. It'll run to several pages if we really go to town on it!

spacey2012

bazster wrote: »

Parking Eye has come up with a new tactic and is filing court claims in hundreds,

Nothing new at all.
They certainly wont be able to take them all to a hearing, it will cost them hundreds of thousands and they will lose most that are defended.
What may seem like the stamping of the boot to some, has the mark of desperation and straw clutching to others.

They are several legal points in relation to the standard of evidence they put before the court in relation to the ANPR admissibility, but legal points are lost in this forum, what people don't understand they ridicule.

Stroma

I would adapt the letter if I was you, send it by post through the post office and get proof of postage, or do it online and take screenshots of your computer to prove you've sent it.


Name
Address

Date
Ref


Dear Parking Eye


Thank you for your letter dated xxxxx, as the registered keeper I deny all liability to your company, I was not the driver on this day. So in line with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, I have given you a serviceable name and address of the keeper of the vehicle on the date of your invoice, which is below.

Name
Address

This matter is now closed, if you proceed with any spurious small claim against me it will be fully defended.

Faithfully

Your name (printed)

bazster

spacey2012 wrote: »

Nothing new at all.

Do you never read anything anyone else posts in your eagerness to replay your cracked record? Last year the entire PPC "industry" filed about 600 court claims. Since October Parking Eye alone has filed at least 1,100 - probably more, we'll see when the FOI request relating to June is responded to. Not new my a**e.

spacey2012 wrote: »

They certainly wont be able to take them all to a hearing, it will cost them hundreds of thousands and they will lose most that are defended.

Of course they can't take them all to court, but they'll win all those that aren't defended, so anyone who doesn't want to lose will have to file a defence. Are you offering to write them all? No, thought not.

spacey2012 wrote: »

What may seem like the stamping of the boot to some, has the mark of desperation and straw clutching to others.

Which is of no help whatsoever to anyone who has received court papers.

spacey2012 wrote: »

They are several legal points in relation to the standard of evidence they put before the court in relation to the ANPR admissibility,

Do you still not get it? It does not matter that their case is a leaky as a colander, people do not want to have to defend these cases. It's all very well you sitting in front of your keyboard smugly spouting pseudo-legal twaddle but you are not the one sitting there with court papers in front of you desperately wondering what to do next.

spacey2012 wrote: »

but legal points are lost in this forum, what people don't understand they ridicule.

If it's ridiculous it'll get ridiculed.