Parking Eye - Aldi

Stonker

Zero_Gravitas wrote: »

Sorry if I'm interfering, but I suspect that Stonker means by a POP that they have a "proof of posting" for the letter they sent to PE telling them who the driver was.


Best Regards,


ZG.

Absolutely. Sorry, I thought it was obvious but maybe not.

No POPLA code yet

Coupon-mad

Aha, sorry, my mistake. I never thought of that as we normally type that as a 'certificate of posting'!

So my rationale in chasing them is that Aldi have said the charge is on hold, and you don't want it to be 'on hold'. They seem to think the ball is in your court, hence why I suggest a quick 'online kick' to PE, putting the ball back in their court.

Otherwise I can see this proceeding to court, against you or the driver when in fact all you need is a POPLA code (to either of you, it matters not!).

Stonker

What I don't understand is that if I have named the driver and PE hasn't contacted the driver, I don't see how they can take either of us to court. I'm confused now as what to do next.

Do I reply to Aldi, if so:

Do I send what is written above?
Do I question why they haven't answered the Equality issues raised in my letter?
Do I tell them that we always pay cash and therefore there is no point in showing them bank statement?

Or do I nudge PE when quite clearly in legal terms, the ball in absolutely in their court as I have named the driver?

Coupon-mad

''What I don't understand is that if I have named the driver and PE hasn't contacted the driver, I don't see how they can take either of us to court.''




Because that's what PE might do. 'Because they can try', and they know it causes people stress and that plenty will fold and pay when faced with court. Why face a court case rather then just shoving them firmly towards issuing that POPLA code or sending the driver a NTD?

I was trying to ensure they can't see it that the ball is in your court, which seems to be what the Aldi response says. You don't want your case 'on hold' so the simplest action for you would be two minutes on PE's online appeal thingy shoving back at them what they need to do (NTD to the driver who you have already named), since there are no receipts and the case is not on hold.

But if they want to save time and send you as registered keeper a POPLA code now rather than issue a NTD to the driver, then you would of course charge them for your time/costs and beat them on the fact you are not liable (driver having already been notified to PE) and that their charge is 'not a genuine pre-estimate of loss' which wins every time as they well know. If they issue the NTD then the driver will beat them later on the same basis so you invite them to simply cancel this charge now.

Stonker

OK so are you suggesting I just tell the the bit about contacting the named driver or should I say what's in your 3rd paragraph too?

Coupon-mad

I would say all of it, online, 2 or 3 minutes then forget it. The driver should get a NTD soon and then they can appeal. You shouldn't hear more but if you do you can win at POPLA with our help anyway, and have paved the way to claiming for your costs afterwards if you are so minded.

Stonker

OK, done that

Stonker

OK, I now need to reply to Aldi. How does this look:

I am in receipt of your letter dated XX XXX. However, I am disappointed that you appear to have sent me what I assume is a template letter requesting proof of purchase and have failed to address the principle matter mentioned in my last letter which was that of discrimination under the Equalities Act 2010.

Unfortunately we rarely use credit or debit cards at all and make the majority of our small purchases in cash. As a result, it is not possible to prove that purchases were made by showing bank statements. I also believe that it is unreasonable to expect a customer to keep till receipts to prove purchase of consumable goods. Furthermore, Parking Eye’s allegation seems to be regarding a claim over how long the vehicle was parked for in the car park rather than whether or not any purchases were made. In this regards, I would like to make the following comments:

1. The amount invoiced in Parking Eye’s fake parking ticket is punitive and is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
2. I refute the claim that any contract existed between the driver and Aldi or its agent
3. The evidence produced fails to substantiate how long the vehicle was parked for or indeed whether it was actually parked at all
4. Your letter claims that if proof of purchase can be substantiated, you can instruct Parking Eye to cancel their fake parking ticket immediately. Should you refuse to do this without proof of purchase, you are not only discriminating against my partner under the equalities Act 2010 but you are also discriminating against her for having paid cash

For a number of years now, we have been regular shoppers in Aldi, have enjoyed the quality and value of your products and have indeed advocated the experience of shopping at Aldi to all our friends and family. We sincerely hope that we can continue to experience shopping at Aldi on a regular basis. However, this ridiculous fake parking ticket has of course detracted from this and we must remind you that our shopping decisions are of course based on the whole shopping experience and not just on value for money.

I am sure that you are fully aware that this fake parking ticket is completely unenforceable and of course you do have the simple choice of instructing your agent to cancel it forthwith to prevent unnecessary harassment and stress to my partner and to enable us to continue enjoying shopping at Aldi

Stonker

My partner has now received the PCN

The_Deep

Should you refuse to do this without proof of purchase, you are discriminating against her ... for having paid cash

I do not think that that is the case. Cash or card, they still provide a receipt.