LETTER BEFORE COUNTY COURT CLAIM - Parking Eye

Lazos

Thank you CM, appreciated. I have adapted the above letter with parts of yours. Will send this after their next Correspondence(which I hope is a template as I will be sending to the SRA).

I have been advised by Easirent that their Preston branch has closed for refurbishment but they are still the Landowners so, e-mailed all four members of the Hanley family directly to lodge my complaint. They have a company Facebook and individual twitter accounts so, lots of fun to be had in the near future(dependant on their responses).

Sadly, I came to my girlfriends last night and she had received letters from PE for a different car park. Even though she has seen how willing I am to fight these from now on...she had decided to pay it! Whatever happens with my PCN, it's going to be slightly tainted by that now!

The_Slithy_Tove

Lazos wrote: »

Sadly, I came to my girlfriends last night and she had received letters from PE for a different car park. Even though she has seen how willing I am to fight these from now on...she had decided to pay it! Whatever happens with my PCN, it's going to be slightly tainted by that now!

If she's paid, then she's a fool, and basically giving in to blackmailers.

Have you contacted the BPA Ltd yet, with a strong complaint? PE have ignored your appeal, which you can prove was delivered. Insist that the BPA Lts make PE consider your appeal, provide a POPLA code, and withdraw their threat of legal action.

PE are getting worse and worse at trampling all over the rules, and even the legal process. Crapita, shame on you for buying an utterly appalling business.

Lazos

The irony is she is a Policewoman and sees both the logic and legal argument in what we are all trying to achieve. Irrespective of that, what's done is done and I have my own battle to win.

I have complained to the BPA now, thank you for the reminder there!

Mr Nick Hanley of the Easirent family has contacted me asking for scanned copies of ALL correspondence between myself and ParkingEye. I will enjoy using this forums experience in pointing out the flaws in each of their letters and the impression this gives me of Easirent by affiliation. They either agree with intimidation, threat and harassment(I doubt that from a family run business) OR they are blind in their ignorance. Let's hope for the latter and a change in perception here?

Lazos

I've just been reviewing my original appeal. I put in the following:

"Finally, please find outlined Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(c) of the Protection of Freedoms Act :

“Describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the end of that period, the circumstances in which the requirementto pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable;”

Your letter entitled “Parking Charge Notice”, sent to the registered keeper, gives an ambiguous statement of:

“By either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted”.

As such, the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Paragraph 9(2)(c ) are not met and therefore your Fake Parking Charge Notice provides the registered keeper with No Keeper Liability""

I just wanted clarification whether this would make a valid POPLA point (Assuming either the BPA or the PPC decide that this should go to POPLA). I will obviously be using GPEOL also.

Coupon-mad

Yes we have seen that mentioned before and it's a perfectly valid fall-back point for POPLA, in case PE get their GPEOL act together in the end. We can't assume! Another winner is the fact they don't own the land, and we know their standard contract shows they are an 'agent', so you say 'no authority' etc.

Lazos

Thank you kindly CM.

Just playing the waiting game now...BPA complaint made, PE correspondance and my reasoning provided to Easirent CEO Nick Hanley as he requested and appeal(ignored) and LBCCC reply awaiting PE response...I also requested full list of PE court losses/POPLA losses from PP.

*Scretches out arms and puts feet up*

The_Deep

I am sure that the ambiguity would not be lost on a judge, but whether the Polar law students would seize it is a different matter.

Lazos

BPA response (seems their Code of Conduct has more leniency than implied) Please start from the bottom and work your way up.

Hello,

Thank you for the reply.

I appreciate your reply, I would like to point out they have sent me a letter before county court claim which advises me that I did not appeal in time.

As in the BPA Code of Conduct, there is a time limit in which ParkingEye must not take further action until but it does not say they are limited to this date.

My primary concern is the lack of acknowledgement received within the specified time.

Please may you look into this as a matter of urgency whilst I await their response.

Regards,
XXXX

> On 6 Jan 2014, at 12:28, "AOS" <aos@britishparking.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Dear Mr XXXX,
>
> Thank you for your e-mail.
>
> I appreciate that your appeal was received by ParkingEye on the 16 December and that they should acknowledge it within 14 days but you need to take into consideration the Christmas period in which they may have been closed either for the full 2 weeks or the period between Christmas and the New Year. The operator then has up to 35 days to reach a decision on your appeal. If they ultimately reject your appeal in the rejection letter they will enclose details of POPLA including the verification code.
>
> Kind regards
>
> AOS Investigation Team
>

---

>
> Hello,
>
> I am looking to make a complaint regarding the parking management company ParkingEye ltd.
>
> It is my understanding that the BPA have associated ParkingEye Ltd. with the agreement that they must adhere to a specific set of guidelines.
>
> One of the guidelines they must comply with is to respond to all Parking Charge Notice Appeals(On this occasion reference XXXXXX/XXXXXX). I have yet to receive a response to my appeal posted on the 13th December 2013. This was sent via recorded delivery and delivered on the 16th December 2013.
>
> I must insist that the BPA take this up with ParkingEye limited as I am aware it is not the first time they have ignored appeals. Please ensure that they respond to myself with either acceptance of the appeal, or rejection and a valid POPLA code.
>
> I look forward to your reply and the results of a much overdue investigation into ParkingEye's poor adherence to your rules and guidelines.
>
> Regards,
> XXXX

nigelbb

To quote from Captain Barbossa in Pirates of the Caribbean 'the code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.'

Lazos

Been reading through the most recent POPLA appeals. A large part of the GPEOL is based on what PE call their 'Commercial Justification'. Raises an extremely interesting point in this case.

Easirents customer service team(via e-mail) informed me that the Preston branch had been closed since 2009. On the phone, I was re-directed to Wigan who advised me that the branch was currently closed for refurbishment. All the letters from PE identify it as "Easirent **** Street Car Park". Now, whichever of the two is factual...It would surely be impossible to prove a commercial justification if the branch in question is closed? (Please note, this is the only commercial outlet within 10/15 minutes of this Car Park)

Thoughts?