ParkingEye Letter Before Action

Umkomaas

You need to read zzzLazyDaisy's thread re Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct where I think you'll find that the PE LBA meets very few of these requirements.

However, you should respond to their 'LBA' in line with Dausy's recommendations.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=62445019&postcount=1

EDIT - parallel posting with Daisy (great minds? - nah, not mine anyway!)

Krayzee

Thank you very much Daisy, I'm certainly more comfortable with a soft reply, having now written it myself with your guidelines, and hadn't realised how bad their response to a robust Acknowledgement is.

Hope you're feeling better soon.

barnesgilly123

help needed please received a parking eye ticket in my local town last November. i parked in free car park but over stayed the time i have ignored all correspondence so far until now i have received a county court claim form for a £150.00 although this is in my brothers name i was the driver as i used to borrow his car. if it was my car and in my name i would not worry so much but i dont want him to get a bad credit score because of this. i just ned advice on what i can do now i still refuse to pay because at the end of the day i owe them nothing. why should there be a time limit on how long you can go shopping for? its a b@@@@y disgrace what ever is this country coming too !!!

zzzLazyDaisy

PLease delete your above post and start your own thread (go back to the forum and click the blue 'new thread' button. Someone will come and help you.

Krayzee

We received ParkingEye's 6 page response today to my 'soft' reply, or what I thought was soft, I wrote it myself using a template as guide so it was written in my own words yet we still got 6 pages back!

The first 4 pages contain lots of legal jargon, and references to previous cases to 'prove' why their charge is just and they do appear to have answered at least a couple of my requests, if not all, I'll have to check. The last two pages are requesting information from me e.g. who authorised me to break the terms and conditions of parking on the private land, they have finally advised that we were parked for 2hrs xxmins (though this was done whilst asking me for my evidence, rather than providing me with the information I requested, if you see what I mean). They end the letter by asking me to state why they have received over 20 identical documents to mine, "believed to originate from online fora" - I'd also like to know why, considering I wrote the response myself, using a template for pointers and therefore it would be written in my unique manner!

I will scan the 6 pages and put them on PePiPoo - is there a way of getting them onto this MSE forum without having to type it all out?

It probably seems silly having it on two forums, but having used PPP in the past, I'm not getting help on there now but am on MSE!

Kite2010

The way they describe the break-down of the "loss" is laughable.

Sorry but Parking Eye, you would have had to pay out staff costs, install costs of the cameras & software, signage, cups of tea for the office monkey regardness if anybody broke the rules. Your losses are limited to £5 at best. £2.50 for the DVLA fee, plus £2.50 for stationary & other time.

zzzLazyDaisy

Hi Krayzee check out post 21 on this thread

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4709595

I bet it is the same letter!

D

zzzLazyDaisy

Krayzee wrote: »

It probably seems silly having it on two forums, but having used PPP in the past, I'm not getting help on there now but am on MSE!

The letter is already all over the forums! It is a template letter - ironic given the fact that PE are accusing you of using a template letter! :-)

PPP are aware of it, but the easiest thing to do is probably easiest just to post the link (see post above).

D

Krayzee

I'll post discrepancies between the two letters, in case it matters:

Page 1, Paragraph 2, 2nd sentence:
>>In this instance, no appeal has been made to ParkingEye in the timescale required (i.e. 28 days from the date of our initial correspondence), instead correspondence has only been sent after court proceedings have been issued.

In mine - In this instance, no appeal has been made to ParkingEye in the timescale required (i.e. 28 days from the date of our initial correspondence), instead correspondence has only been sent after this case has been put forward for further action.

Page 2:
>>The Land Holder/Land Owner:
1. In this case, we are contracted by landholder. We are not at liberty to divulge the address of this party.

In mine - they did identify the land holder/land owner, I may go back to them and discuss this to see if they can get it cancelled and also to confirm that the land holder name is correct.

Page 6:
>>4. Please provide your reasons for having ignored the 4 of letters sent to you in relation to this charge.

In mine - 4. Please provide your reasons for having ignored the numerous letters sent to you in relation to this charge.

I don't know if they make any real difference. I'll PM you.

They did not provide the claimant's full address, advising me they are not at liberty to divulge it at this time. They advise me later on that the creditor (ParkingEye) is clearly displayed on every letter - I didn't ask for anything on the creditor. According to them this means the claimant is identified - they are contradicting themselves as they named the claimant earlier in the letter, and it wasn't ParkingEye that they named!

They have not told me the basis on which the claim is made. Later in the latter they tell me how the long the car was parked for.

They haven't provided a clear summary of the facts on which the claim is based - not surprising seeing as they haven't told me the basis (above) either.

They HAVE told me what they want (naturally!) and a lot of text about how their loss was calculated.

They haven't listed the essential documents on which the claimant intends to rely, though they have said they can't as no defence has been filed yet

They haven't set out the form of ADR (if any) that the claimant considers the most suitable and invite the defendant to agree to this

They haven't stated the date by which the claimant considers it reasonable for a full response to be provided by the defendant. They make no mention of a full response, but they have given me 14 days to provide the information they requested - am I right in thinking I'm under no obligation to provide this information to them? It's the 8 points ParkingEye's Request for Further Information. Unless this is the "i

I never received a letter titled Notice to Keeper - is this relevant?

I'm afraid I don't know what my next step is, but thank you for your help thus far

zzzLazyDaisy

Hi Krayzee

Thanks for posting the discrepancies - that is very useful.

A couple of points -

Did you ever go back to the walk-in centre and ask if they could cancel the charge?

More importantly, since you now have the details of the landowner, it is worth contacting them and

a) checking that they are in fact the landowner - not saying PE would deliberately mislead, but they are using a template letter, so it is not impossible that mistakes could be made; and
b) contacting the landowner to see if they will get the charge cancelled.

Re your question about the first letter - I have been over to PPP and had a look at your scanned docs. That is not the usual 'through the post' PCN, when you have been caught by ANPR cameras. Yours is the letter they send after a windscreen ticket has been left on the vehicle (that's also why it was later as the time scales are different). So it sounds like the driver had a windscreen ticket. If you did not receive a windscreen ticket, then we need to see a copy of that ticket (this goes in your full Response, and later your Defence, so not something we need to worry about now).

I will leave you to chase down the landowner and try and see this thing off that way.

I am going offline for a few days, and I will help you with a letter to PE about the practice direction when I get back. There is no rush - you have two weeks.

D