Parking Eye - Still Best Practice to Ignore?

jeanraffio

I've taken the opportunity to scan in a soft appeal rejection letter (redacted), so that people who are thinking of paying it can see for themselves:

- The propoganda used by ParkingEye to force a payment
- The inaccuracies in virtually everything that they write
- And how kind it is of them to give me a grace period at a reduced cost (but I thought it was a fine!) - clearly don't want the hassle of a POPLA loss and the costs involved.

You can view it here (11 pages!):

http://imgur.com/a/vzLDq

Coupon-mad

And one for the sticky (Morrisons, Edgbaston, Birmingham).

Consider it done (in a mo!). Well done and thanks for all the detail and that link of PE's utter drivel about GPEOL (in their heads)!

Stick around jeanraffio!

zzzLazyDaisy

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Stick around jeanraffio!

Seconded!

I'd just like to say how nice it has been to see you arrive here seeking advice, and then joining the regulars in assisting other posters with similar problems, as you've gained knowledge of the process. It hasn't gone unnoticed! :beer:

Welsh_Exile

jeanraffio wrote: »

Ok, another update.

Yesterday PE rejected the soft appeal and supplied the POPLA code.

BUT...

After some back and forth emails with Morrisons Customer Service, they have cancelled the charge this morning. So a victory, but PE haven't paid and lost at POPLA and the BPA have been as useless as ever.

A double edged victory. And one for the sticky (Morrisons, Edgbaston, Birmingham).

I can give more details if people want them, just let me know if you do...

Don't sell your efforts short - it may well be that complaints to stores and landowners achieve more than beating PPCs at POPLA.
Very well done!

Guys_Dad

Have they not shot themselves in the foot? In that letter, they say that from their accounts the average cost for issuing a ticket is £53. They say that £60 is needed for them to operate so how can their £100 be an estimate of loss?

That extract from their letter is a gem that should be copied in every court and POPLA appeal.

Daisy - what's your take on that?

trisontana

But that £60 cannot be claimed as "losses". They are just normal day-to-day operating costs which would still be there if nobody breaks their silly rules. This is why PE have lost POPLA appeals time after time.

Guys_Dad

trisontana wrote: »

But that £60 cannot be claimed as "losses". They are just normal day-to-day operating costs which would still be there if nobody breaks their silly rules. This is why PE have lost POPLA appeals time after time.

Agreed. But this is even better as it confirms that there is a strong element of profit in their charge over and above operating costs and is therefore by their own admission a penalty charge and disputes any made up charges that they include as "losses".

zzzLazyDaisy

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Have they not shot themselves in the foot? In that letter, they say that from their accounts the average cost for issuing a ticket is £53. They say that £60 is needed for them to operate so how can their £100 be an estimate of loss?

That extract from their letter is a gem that should be copied in every court and POPLA appeal.

Daisy - what's your take on that?

I agree that it is very important because:

Even on their own evidence, £100 can never be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. So based on their own evidence their case must fail.

That is not to lose sight of the fact that a genuine pre-estimate of loss can ONLY relate to the losses incurred by the claimant which would NOT have been incurred but for the defendant's breach.

Guys_Dad

So, to my mind we have a double point.

The first is that the GPEOL contains operating costs and is, therefore, not a GPEOL . This is our usual winner.

The new one we have is that the charge of £100 that they claim covers their losses/costs are overstated as PE have published what their costs actually are (£53), so even if POPLA (or more likely the court) should accept that they do have a claim on their costs being reimbursed, by their own hand, they have stated that such costs are on average £53.

This is an Admitted Overstatement of Costs and should be thrown out of any court.

Should this advice be given as advice to those facing court action from PE?

trisontana

And don't forget the £50 "solicitor's fee"paid to their in-house legal rep, who I presume is paid a salary.