Parking Eye - Rejection of Invalid Invoice

Thanet62

Having submitted an appeal based on the template provided in the "Newbie" forum (pre-estimate loss, signage etc). I have today received two letters from Parking Eye. The first a 7 page "Rejection" of my appeal outlining cases where they have "won" and basically why I won't.

The second letter I have copied out:-

Dear Sir/Madam

REJECTION OF INVALID INVOICE

With reference to your correspondence in relation to the Parking Charge incurred on XX Feb at XX, at xx

Parking Eye is a car park management business contracted by the owners of private land to manage its usage in line with the landowners directions.

All invoices issued to Parking Eye in relation to any alleged loss, cost or expense or payments sought in relation to payment, appeal or any other issue by motorists are categorically rejected.

You have not formed a legally binding contract with Parking Eye, under which any right to invoice for payment for goods or services may arise; therefore as stated your invalid invoice is rejected and a copy of your correspondence will be forwarded to the landowner.

Yours faithfully

Legal Services
Parking Eye Ltd.

..................................................

I'm intrigued by the last paragraph. If my invoice is invalid then surely by the same token there's is as well?

I have started my appeal to POPLA and will send as soon as I get some further clarification.

da_rule

This is exactly the letter i received from them.

ColliesCarer

Landowners are going to love getting a copy of every appeal PE get that has the paragraph about claiming costs back should the appellant prevail - lol

surfboy1

Are you not claiming costs from Parking Eye?
That letter states that they do not recognise your invoice for goods or services supplied!
You are not claiming goods or services supplied.

Thanet62

surfboy1 wrote: »

Are you not claiming costs from Parking Eye?
That letter states that they do not recognise your invoice for goods or services supplied!
You are not claiming goods or services supplied.

The rejection may well have been in response to part of the appeal letter that stated :-

(c) If you reject my challenge and insist upon taking the matter further I must inform you that I may claim my costs from you and my time at the court rate of £18 per hour. The expenses I may claim are not exhaustive but may include the cost of stamps, envelopes, travel expenses and legal fees as well as liquidated damages for distress arising from harassment.

Redx

I think the point is that a PPC like PE think that if they point something out then they think you have entered a contract if you continue and they think it can be enforced in law, so if that is true then the people fighting back can also point out some form of contract or rules or suchlike and then try to enforce it too

its called tit for tat

you send me an invoice and waste my time , and I will send you one for wasting my time if I successfully beat your invoice

we saw a recent appeal to a PPC based on a similar case where one company issued similar threats because they could prove the vehicle had not parked their due to 24h tracking , the PPC dropped the charge , that was earlier this week so just shows how tit for tat works

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4919560