Parkingeye NTD, email implication of driver?

arachnoides

Hello

On Thursday (13th March) I found a NTD from parkingeye on my car whilst it was parked at my university. The ticket cites not having a permit (which I did not as it had expired and was not visible). I have read the forums and am prepared with my first appeal citing mainly the pre-estimate of loss thing along with the rest. I told my supervisor about it casually and he emailed the manager of the estate who emailed parkingeye to try and cancel the ticket. He says he doesn't hold much hope they will cancel it. If they do not cancel it does that email from the manager to parkingeye imply that I am the driver for legal purposes?
My supervisor, unaware of the legal implications of being the driver, did mention my name in his email to the manager but I am unsure if the manager mentioned my name in his email to parkingeye, I doubt that he would have but he may have. If this is the case, and the email does carry implication I am the driver, is it still worth waiting for the 'notice to keeper' before I fire off my first appeal or should I just do it now?

Many thanks for your help, these forums are a lifesaver for many people like me who cannot afford to pay these outrageous charges. Keep up the good work

Coupon-mad

I think I would still wait for the NTK, on balance.

da_rule

I would wait for the NtK. Although ParkingEye have been contacted it would be hard for them to ever prove who the driver was. It's a bit like Chinese whispers.

Umkomaas

OP - are you sure the PPC is ParkingEye? Windscreen tickets are not their usual modus op.

Maybe a self ticketing arrangement with the uni's security department?

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

I'm assuming you are a student. Why not approach the union, explain what you have learnt about the excessive make of these charges and ask them to take action to get an ethical parking solution in place (and that does not mean employing Ethical Parking!!!).

arachnoides

Hi all, thankyou for your responses.

I will wait for the NTK before sending my appeal - I will let you know what happens.

Yeah it is the security staff on campus who issue the tickets, I assume they send the details off to parkingeye.

That's a good idea, I may contact the student union here and present the details of these unfair terms used by parking eye and try to get the ball rolling for a review of the system.

I dont want to hijack my own thread here but a lot of the transcripts of successful appeals state that 'on the signs the wording indicates the charge is damages for breach of a parking contract...' or similar. Thus indicating the money demanded is for damages and then on to pre-estimate of loss and so on. I was interested what on the signs wording would indicate that because on the sign here it only says 'failure to comply with the regulations will result in a Parking Charge of: £100'. Would this wording be counted by POPLA as indicating the charge is for liquidated damages for a successful pre-estimate of loss appeal? I think it would but can find no evidence of the wording used on the signs that indicate this.

Many thanks for your help.

Umkomaas

Once breach is mentioned then GPEOL will win at POPLA. In fact with a well prepared POPLA appeal using template from the NEWBIES sticky, PE has been baling out without a fight at POPLA.

One other point you might wish to raise with the Uni via your Student Union rep is how much of a kick-back is PE providing to the college (an often seen arrangement where self-ticketing is in place). Is it going into Uni coffers (and what is it used for) or is someone trousering it? Might be an interesting response as if there is a kick-back there is definitely an incentive to more aggressively ticket.

I'm sure other Uni students will be interested in learning of any such backhanders!

arachnoides

Hi Umk, thanks for your reply.

Yeah I assume that the contract entered is for the regulations stated - that if I have a permit then the contract is entered and is valid. As not having a permit is clearly not allowed, stated by 'failure to comply with regulations', then there can be no contract for parking without a permit and so the charge is not an agreed contractual price and must be for breach of the contract of parking WITH a permit.

I think I will deffinitely speak to the student union, student pressure should help for a thorough investigation. I will wait until my appeal has been sent and processed, and the POPLA process if needed, before raising the issue in order to bring a nice example to the table.

I hope PE don't take it to the POPLA stage as I do not have time to be dealing with this and the outrage of the thing has been badly playing on my mind haha.

Many thanks.

Umkomaas

I hope PE don't take it to the POPLA stage as I do not have time to be dealing with this and the outrage of the thing has been badly playing on my mind haha.

The likelihood is they will hoping you will 'break' before that point, but of late they have just not submitted documents to POPLA and the appellant wins by default.

There won't be much work for you to do to win at POPLA, it is simply a copy and paste from the template, a short intro paragraph by you and generally a 'topping and tailing' with your personal details, then swish it off via the POPLA website appeals portal.

You've probably spent more time typing your posts on this thread than you will have to do to produce your POPLA appeal. Flash it up here for checking before sending it off, then join the 100% forum assisted successful appellants who've beaten the PPCs at POPLA.

But first await that NtK - be patient!