ParkingEye PCN

kelesis

Hi, I have been browsing the site and read some of the stickys on this forum and have learnt a great deal from this site.

Could i have some help with the following please?

I have been issued a PCN from Parking Eye asking me for £85 for overstaying the 3 hour free parking. The PCN has a time stamped ANPR picture.

Some points to note, the incident took place at a large retail park where you could easily spend more than 3 hours there.
The passenger is a wheelchair user.
The driver and passenger were genuine customers of the shops and have recipts.


Does this look okay to send? How important is the appeal?

Dear Parking Eye,
Ref Number

I am writing to you as the registered keeper of the vehicle to appeal the above on the following points:

• At the time, the driver was unaware of the condition of the contract which charges £85 for staying past 3 hours.
• The driver and passenger were genuine customers of the shops and can provide receipts or bank statements as evidence.
• The £85 charge is inappropriate and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss incurred for Parking Eye or the landowner.

Im trying to include as much info as possible to make it easy for responders to help, but at the same time am trying not to provide "too much" info as someone signature says that the operators view this site. :eek:


ugh, going to bed now, it's late and my brain is turning to mush.

Guys_Dad

If you have receipts then enclose copies of them as PE will ask for them any way.

Is the £85 the discounted rate and what is the full rate? And do not say that the amount is a condition of the contract. What contract? You are going to deny there was one. Instead, complain about the signs.

Read the sticky thread at the top of the forum by Coupon-mad for NEWBIES and try again with your appeal, but do major on being a genuine shopper with proof that you enclose.

Finally you must ask for cancellation or POPLA code.

Coupon-mad

You can simply submit this online to PE today and it WILL be cancelled I am sure:








Dear Parking Eye,
Ref Number

I am writing to you as the registered keeper of the vehicle to appeal the above on the following points:

• The driver entered into no contract to pay you for staying past 3 hours. No signs were seen at all. I believe you deliberately place the entrance sign, and any others, too high and out of sight of a driver, knowing that people are relying upon free parking at the invitation of the retailer so will not see your extortionate terms. I intend on complaining to the Retail Manager about your modus operandi and intimidation of paying customers.
• The charge is inappropriate - unlawful in our case, see below - and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss incurred for Parking Eye or the landowner.
• The driver and passenger were genuine customers of the shops but I have better things to do than photocopy receipts for a third party like you.
• The passenger was a disabled wheelchair user and you appear to have made no 'reasonable adjustments' of time for disabled visitors, which is illegal. Your duty to make adjustments is anticipatory and you cannot lawfully just impose a 'blanket policy' like an arbitrary time limit then rely upon complaints like mine, to cancel charges on individual occasions. You are failing in your duty under the Equality Act 2010 - as 'service providers' (and I use that term very loosely in your case) - to make anticipatory reasonable adjustments. Explain yourselves please so I can report you to the EHRC.

If ParkingEye do not cancel this then I will charge for my time from now on, at a court rate of £18 per hour, plus costs such as stationery, photocopying, printing and postage. I also reserve the right to issue court proceedings against you and your client, as you are jointly and severally liable for damages for harassment and breach of the Equality Act 2010. You have clearly been advised about the passenger's disability so I strongly suggest you cancel immediately. Take note: if you reject and send me a POPLA code or send a holding letter asking for receipts, then my charges will apply because anything other than cancellation is wholly unacceptable under these circumstances.

Umkomaas

Another cracker of a letter CM.

A real Christmas cracker for PE, except there's no silly joke enclosed with this one

kelesis

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You can simply submit this online to PE today and it WILL be cancelled I am sure:

Awsome letter CM! I will be definitely be sending this.

Edit: Cm's letter has been sent.

kelesis

I received Parking Eye's response to my appeal on monday (30th dec) and the letters are dated 27th December. I didn't have the chance to look at it until now due to new year.

They actually sent two letters, one asks for evidence of purchases, the other talks about Commercial justification and argues that the charges are fair, then cites some court cases. I couldn't find this letter in the PPC letter chains sticky, would someone like me to upload it? I gather that this is a standard letter.

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Is the £85 the discounted rate and what is the full rate?

@ Guy's dad, it's the full rate £50 was the discount.

Anyway's im ready to send off the proof (using the online appeals page) and wanted to ask is there was anything i need to know before i send them?

Stroma

I would post something in reply, but coupon will undoubtably trump anything I could come up with.

GO Coupon Mad

prosnap

Did they send you a POLPLA form and code?

Big_Bad_Dad

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Is the £85 the discounted rate and what is the full rate?

More than likely the full charge. If any Parking Eye discount is over £60 it would mean the full amount exceeded £100 (the BPA CoP stating that discount must be a minimum of 40%). Most companies like to keep within the £100 frame as it helps them believe the BPA CoP approves this figure as legitimate when in fact the wordage merely states that a charge should be for damages and is not expected to exceed £100 though if it does, it should be calculated in advance.

So the parking companies all think: we can charge up to £100 without having to explain ourselves because the BPA says we can!

All cobblers.

kelesis

prosnap wrote: »

Did they send you a POLPLA form and code?

No, I think this is because they havn't rejected the appeal yet.

Coupon-mad

kelesis wrote: »

I received Parking Eye's response to my appeal on monday (30th dec) and the letters are dated 27th December. I didn't have the chance to look at it until now due to new year.

They actually sent two letters, one asks for evidence of purchases, the other talks about Commercial justification and argues that the charges are fair, then cites some court cases. I couldn't find this letter in the PPC letter chains sticky, would someone like me to upload it? I gather that this is a standard letter.

Anyway's im ready to send off the proof (using the online appeals page) and wanted to ask is there was anything i need to know before i send them?

Their letter is a version of this rubbish isn't it, as uploaded by ken979?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4835679



I would send a complaint to the Retail Park Centre Manager (maybe a copy of this appeal, with a covering note requiring them to call their 'Equality Act breaking' dogs off!) and send PE this reply online, so it's free for you. Personally, and I would NOT send them copy receipts, as a matter of principle, because able bodied people staying under the time limit don't have to show them so why should a disabled person & their carer, for staying a little longer (as allowed by law)?:




Dear ParkingEye,

RE: PCN number xxxxxxxxx

Thank you for now wasting your money by sending me not one but TWO letters to start the New Year. As I already warned you in my previous letter, you have no prospects of success at POPLA nor at court and my time spent dealing with your obfuscation has now resulted in my first costs, which so far amount to:

- £18 for my time (1 hour) spent now dealing with these two letters from you.

It is wholly unreasonable for ParkingEye to ignore the fact I have already informed you that the passenger was a disabled wheelchair-user. Clearly your arbitrary time limit makes no 'reasonable adjustment' of time for disabled visitors, which is a breach of the Equality Act 2010 on your part and that of your client. As Service Providers, both parties have anticipatory duties under statute, to consider the needs of disabled visitors and make reasonable adjustments in advance - you must have a policy in place to make allowances before you know about any individual visitor's disability. And yet, even now in a case when you do know about an individual disability, instead of dropping the charge immediately ParkingEye persist in harassing us by demanding sight of receipts that able-bodied visitors do not have to show in order to park and go about the same business!

If you reply and insist on receipts from a disabled party of visitors who were legally allowed a longer time limit WITHOUT receipts being shown, then my costs will escalate to include further time spent, plus photocopying costs and other expenses. Every letter from ParkingEye is being logged and in particular, sending me two letters including a 'list of court cases' is behaviour designed to frighten and intimidate the recipient. Harassment is a crime as well as a tort and has certainly been established in my view, since your actions have become a 'serious and persistent unwarranted threat' as found by Lord Justice Sedley in Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 46 (10 February 2009) but with the added serious breach of disability law in our case.

Your continued desperate pursuit of this matter constitutes harassment of a disabled person and their carer - another specific breach of the Equality Act, to compound your first one. Damages for distress and harassment will be added to my costs if you do not cancel this charge now, and will certainly exceed the amount of £200 that you seem to be routinely extracting from less-informed victims.

As for your letter citing court cases, I am unimpressed by your attempt to intimidate me. This letter is mere bluster - a standard unhelpful and frankly misleading response which does nothing to address my previous points. I would mention that I am an unrepresented individual - an ordinary family of customers of your client - and your disdain for my situation when the passenger was disabled will be brought to the Retail Park's attention now in an official complaint. Not only that, the Retail Park are now on notice that they are jointly and severally liable for the unlawful and unwarranted actions of you, their agent, and will be named as a second defendant in any MCOL I am forced to submit, if ParkingEye persist beyond this point.

Your charge has no 'commercial justification' because it is punitive, emanating from a mere agent with no standing nor authority and certainly no loss has been suffered by ParkingEye nor the rightful landowner/holder. Exposing your client, the Retail park, to a claim for harassment and breach of the Equality Act 2010 by hounding their paying, disabled customers is clearly not acting in the best interests of the principal. My case is an example of ParkingEye's typical aggressive business model and I am glad at least, for the opportunity to bring it to your client's attention now. Any Retail Park Manager would only have to carry out a simple online search of your company name to realise that contracting with ParkingEye has potential to affect their own business reputation; after all, the name ParkingEye has not been synonymous with 'parking management' in 2013.

Finally, as you know to your cost, POPLA are not accepting your spurious 'commercial justification' argument and are upholding all appeals which mention the fact your charges are not a 'genuine pre-estimate of loss'. I take your stalling tactics, at best, to be an attempt to avoid giving me a POPLA code.

I look forward to hearing from you by return with either:

- a POPLA code, in which case, my costs will escalate because you are already aware from my first appeal that you have no prospect of success, you are wasting my time and you have breached the Equality Act,

or

- confirmation that the charge is cancelled. As my costs so far are minimal and in an honest attempt to resolve the matter, I will waive them only if you cancel this spurious charge within 14 days.

I have nothing further to add in terms of information at this stage. I have nothing to prove, I have appealed and I am entitled to POPLA or cancellation.

yours,


the registered keeper's name