Unenforceable ParkingEye PCN

da_rule

kirkbyinfurnesslad wrote: »

Well its been enforced plenty of times by PE in the county court......

Well I would suggest that this particular point has not been raised.

I would also point you to this POPLA decision http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/important-popla-ruling-non-pofa-2012.html It would take a very strange court to not find in favour of this highly logical POPLA approach (and yes I understand that under the doctrine of stare decisis that a county court is not bound by other county courts or by POPLA).

4consumerrights

da_rule wrote: »

I recently won a POPLA appeal against ParkingEye on the grounds that their PCN was unenforceable. I have inserted a copy of the PCN below and have numbered the areas which I appealed on and have explained them further below the image.

This statement that you made though is not strictly accurate as you don't know that this is why you won the POPLA appeal - as Parking Eye failed to submit any evidence at all.

As you stated other appeal points were raised and it has been proven on this forum that parking eye bottle out on these points also.

Perhaps you would like to get another parking ticket from this company and ignore all paperwork so you can test out this point in court for us?

da_rule

I actually do know on what grounds I won the appeal, as the appeal decision nicely says: "It is the Appellant’s case that the parking charge notice was issued incorrectly." This appeal was then allowed.

4consumerrights

da_rule wrote: »

I actually do know on what grounds I won the appeal, as the appeal decision nicely says: "It is the Appellant’s case that the parking charge notice was issued incorrectly." This appeal was then allowed.

Sorry you are very naive if you think that the appeal was won due to dissection of the wording on the Notice to keeper as that statement is the standard wording used.

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

4consumerrights wrote: »

Sorry you are very naive if you think that the appeal was won due to dissection of the wording on the Notice to keeper as that statement is the standard wording used.

How true, you could have said the cat made you park there, And if Parking eye didnt provide any evidence you would still have won

Parking-Prankster

This is a very interesting case. Obviously the POPLA assessors got bored with the standard 'no GPEOL' and decided to have some fun with ParkingEye.


If this decision is consistently upheld in POPLA, then all ParkingEye NtKs are invalid.


If a court uphold the decision then ParkingEye are in trouble. We should keep an eye on their NtKs to see if they change them (like they did with 'the creditor' issue.


Would be interesting to understand exactly why the assessor threw the NtK out.

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Parking-Prankster wrote: »

This is a very interesting case. Obviously the POPLA assessors got bored with the standard 'no GPEOL' and decided to have some fun with ParkingEye.


If this decision is consistently upheld in POPLA, then all ParkingEye NtKs are invalid.


If a court uphold the decision then ParkingEye are in trouble. We should keep an eye on their NtKs to see if they change them (like they did with 'the creditor' issue.


Would be interesting to understand exactly why the assessor threw the NtK out.

Parking eye didnt submit any evidence so the appeal was allowed without any further deliberation

Half_way

Unenforceable ParkingEye PCN

Arent they all like that when defended properly? which begs the question is parking eyes business model nothing short of fraud/misrepresentation etc etc, and those who allow parking eye and their like to operate in their car parks/on their land would also be complicit in this, and possibly negligent in their duty of care?

ColliesCarer

Parking-Prankster wrote: »

If a court uphold the decision then ParkingEye are in trouble. We should keep an eye on their NtKs to see if they change them (like they did with 'the creditor' issue.

Hi Prankster - great web-site by the way - thank you.

What is/was the creditor issue?

I have a PCN issued by PE towards end Jan that says
"....... the Parking Charge is now payable to ParkingEye Ltd (as the Creditor)."
Is that anything to do with it?

Parking-Prankster wrote: »

Would be interesting to understand exactly why the assessor threw the NtK out.

Yes it would

Sorry just realised I might be hijacking Da_rules thread here. If I am apologies - will start new one.

Coupon-mad

da_rule wrote: »

I actually do know on what grounds I won the appeal, as the appeal decision nicely says: "It is the Appellant’s case that the parking charge notice was issued incorrectly." This appeal was then allowed.

You don't know in fact - that's standard wording for 'PE threw in the towel' and doesn't state the findings of any decision at all. I don't share your views about this PCN either - the only thing I think PE have wrong in some of their PCNs is not clearly stating the contravention, in the ones where they say 'either/or'. They do NOT have to put the PCN on a stationary vehicle!

PE threw in the towel because they saw you had mentioned no GPEOL.