Parking Eye ANPR

ffacoffipawb

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Why would anyone in their right mind have to do that when visiting a Supermarket with a free car park (rhetorical question)! They never said they 'returned' either!

I just gave a rhetorical explanation as to why the scenario could have occurred that's all. No need to bite my head off!

phoenixegmh

Hoohoo,

Thank you for taking the time to read my post and responding appropriately. Would you suggest including the expenditure at the site as an offset to any loss incurred (this would go above and beyond any lost revenue from parking tickets)?

hoohoo

phoenixegmh wrote: »

Hoohoo,

Thank you for taking the time to read my post and responding appropriately. Would you suggest including the expenditure at the site as an offset to any loss incurred (this would go above and beyond any lost revenue from parking tickets)?

Yes, but only if parkingeye have included their usual guff about the landowner losing money over and above the actual parking fee

phoenixegmh

Without sending myself to sleep, I haven't read word for word the items on the return letter. Their suspiciously standard looking letter starts off the bat with a section on "Pre-estimate of Loss and Commercial Justification" (and subsequently ignoring all other parts of my appeal).

There is also a statement of "...there are also significant losses incurred by the landowner" but I can't find any figure specifically quoted.

Would this be sufficient to warrant inclusion, in your opinion?

Stroma

So if there were significant losses by the landowner, why do they include their (parking eye) running costs of their business as gpeol ? The truth is that there is no loss and if there were it would have to be the landowner loss, they would have to prove that loss, then if you didn't pay the landowner take you to court.

hoohoo

phoenixegmh wrote: »

Without sending myself to sleep, I haven't read word for word the items on the return letter. Their suspiciously standard looking letter starts off the bat with a section on "Pre-estimate of Loss and Commercial Justification" (and subsequently ignoring all other parts of my appeal).

There is also a statement of "...there are also significant losses incurred by the landowner" but I can't find any figure specifically quoted.

Would this be sufficient to warrant inclusion, in your opinion?

Yes. You would say something like;

parkingEye have stated there are significant losses incurred by the landowner. However this is not true because [your reasons here]

trisontana

"there are also significant losses incurred by the landowner"

Perhaps you drove a tank onto the car park, ploughed up the tarmac and knocked down all the lamp posts. Unless you did that I image the landowner hasn't suffered any loss at all.

phoenixegmh

Aaaand another victory at POPLA against Parking Eye who failed to provide any evidence to POPLA!

I have, however found this picture of their CEO on the internet... :rotfl::rotfl: