PCN from Parking Eye

Chris_J_Moran

Hi there

I recently received a PCN from Private Eye with the usual, oft quoted stuff. However, I DO actually have the ticket I bought when I parked, and I actually paid MORE than the £3.50 'all day' charge (I pad £4.00. I've read the sticky threads, but just want to make sure I've covered all angles for my personal circumstance.

Using a template I've located, I'm planning to write to Parking Eye thus:

Dear Sir or Madam,

Ticket number: XXXXX/XXXXX
Vehicle registration number: X99 999

You issued me with a parking ticket on <date> but I believe it was unfairly issued and I will not be paying your demand for payment for the following reason:

• The alleged contravention did not occur
Quite simply, the issuing of the ticket is incorrect. This is due to the fact that the driver correctly paid and displayed a ticket in the vehicle for a parking fee in excess of the amount specified for a ‘Full Day’. The quoted charge for a full day on a Saturday (on which the alleged breach occurred) is £3.50, yet as you will see from the attached evidence that a fee of £4.00 was paid. Further to this, the fee was paid within 2 minutes of entry onto the land for which Parking Eye is the agent, which is an appropriate period in which to find a parking space, walk to the ticket machine and obtain a ticket. Please see attached photocopy of ticket number 00099999 issued for vehicle X99 ABC at <time> on <date> as proof of this claim.

If you choose to pursue me please be aware that I will not enter into any correspondence and this will be the only letter you will receive from me until you answer the specific points raised in my letter.

Could anyone offer any advice or comment on whether this is appropriately worded and whether I need to add anything else?

Many thanks for your assistance.

Redx

I suggest you remove any personal details from that draft (if they are actually true , like invoice number etc)

also maybe tack on something like the following too

Dear Parking EyeLtd

I also wish to invoke your appeal process on the following points if you do not cancel this charge

1) this is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
2) you do not have authority or contract to issue these invoices
3) your signage is not compliant to the BPA Code of Practice

So you are invited to cancel this charge, or supply a POPLA verification code if you reject this appeal.

---

scan the ticket and send the copy along with your appeal/challenge

Chris_J_Moran

Hi Redx

Thanks for the quick response. When you say 'personal details like invoice number' - which bit do you mean? Do you mean that I shouldn't quote my PCN reference in the response, or do you mean the ref number of the actual ticket I purchased on the day?

What is the minimum I need to give them for them to be able to relate it to the appropriate PCN without exposing myself to a drawn out argument?

Many thanks again - appreciate the help.

Chris_J_Moran

...ignore me - now I understand what you mean.

Post edited accordingly!

Thanks again.

Redx

Chris_J_Moran wrote: »

...ignore me - now I understand what you mean.

Post edited accordingly!

Thanks again.

yep, that is what I meant

leave it in your own home document

just edit it out when posting on here (redact it) , as you have now done

Chris_J_Moran

Thanks again. I've also got a photo of the tariff board showing clearly the weekend day rate, which is less than I actually paid!!

I wonder how many people using that car park every weekend get hit with these notices as there is clearly a flaw in the technology linking the cameras to the ticket machine...either that or Private Eye is adopting the approach that high volume scamming will reap a decent return.

Redx

Chris_J_Moran wrote: »

Thanks again. I've also got a photo of the tariff board showing clearly the weekend day rate, which is less than I actually paid!!

I wonder how many people using that car park every weekend get hit with these notices as there is clearly a flaw in the technology linking the cameras to the ticket machine...either that or Private Eye is adopting the approach that high volume scamming will reap a decent return.

most likely both !!

its a lucrative racket

bod1467

Chris_J_Moran wrote: »

Private Eye

Accidental or deliberate misquote?

(A solicitor for Parking Eye actually made that error in a court case) :rotfl: