parking eye prosecuting an 89 yr old who didn't need a parking ticket

Ivor_Pecheque

I'm glad he's okay.

The bottom line is, your friend his been distressed by the failure of Parking Eye, and those who commission them. I'd be tempted to shout from the roof tops.

coventrian

Yes thank you.He's just glad he can leave it behind him and he knows just how many people shielded him.PE has,as many people know a multi-million pound business that relies on intimidation,threats and scare tactics and for them to ignore the flaws in it just brings them more money.

coventrian

I had a tear in my eye yesterday as after sitting to explain the letter of cancellation he went to put his hand in his pocket to give me some money.No chance, i said,this is a freebee.
I hope non of you identify me as a free pint for you all would be more than the initial trumped up charge!:rotfl:

coventrian

I forgot to mention that i emailed monitor and the cqc.Monitor wasn't interested and the cqc said,after looking in to this for me,that they found no breach of EA2010.

Stroma

No breach, they are having a laugh! If your friend was up to it he could send them a letter before claim for the harassment this has caused him by their agents parking eye, the stress of dealing with this would mean a claim of at least £500 IMO

They would be falling over themselves to settle this out of court because it would be a public relations disaster for them if this went to court and they lost, they are equally liable as parking eye in this.

The major problem though is that your friend would have to do this, of course he would get help but reading your posts on here I think he is just happy to forget about this now and carry on with his life. If I'm wrong please post back here.

HO87

Stroma wrote: »

No breach, they are having a laugh! If your friend was up to it he could send them a letter before claim for the harassment this has caused him by their agents parking eye, the stress of dealing with this would mean a claim of at least £500 IMO

They would be falling over themselves to settle this out of court because it would be a public relations disaster for them if this went to court and they lost, they are equally liable as parking eye in this.

The major problem though is that your friend would have to do this, of course he would get help but reading your posts on here I think he is just happy to forget about this now and carry on with his life. If I'm wrong please post back here.

True. However, if he is unwell such that he could not initiate things in his own name then there is the legal concept of "next friend" which would enable the OP to kick things off. So proceedings would be issued by the "gentleman in question represented by conventrian, his next friend".

Stroma

Well I'm not really conversant in that side of things, but I'm not really sure he'd want this dragged out further now, still I may be wrong and he could be willing to kick them where it hurts. There will be a queue of people willing to help in this matter I think.

HO87

Stroma wrote: »

Well I'm not really conversant in that side of things, but I'm not really sure he'd want this dragged out further now, still I may be wrong and he could be willing to kick them where it hurts. There will be a queue of people willing to help in this matter I think.

And who would blame him if he did just drop things? I think he's earned a peaceful retirement without further hassles.

As for Monitor's and CQC's comments? Well, they would say that wouldn't they. Organisations put in place to support and protect the consumer/patient not actually doing so. Who'd have thought of that ever happening?

esmerobbo

A letter written through gritted teeth it certainly is!

Coupon-mad

coventrian wrote: »

Parking Prankster said he was informed that a letter will be sent to the motorist telling him that the pcn and county court claim is/was being cancelled.He was right.Motorist got the letter, dated 12 May, yesterday(thursday).
Here is the full letter.

Dear Mr xxxxxxx,
We are writing in relation to the above referenced parking charge and subsequent county court claim made against you yourself as registered keeper of vehicle registration xxxxxx.

In this instance,we can confirm the initial charge was issued by parkingeye to yourself on 17/09/2013. Two further letters were also sent after this initial notice. As no appeal or payment was received in this period,we sent a letter Before county court claim on 05/11/2013. As a result of this parkingeye issued a county court claim against yourself on 07/02/2014.The parking charge sent to yourself was initially issued as a result of your vehicle remaining on site at the City of Coventry Health Centre for 1 hour and 34 minutes without purchasing time to park,or having having a permit registered at reception as a result of being a disabled badge holder.

It was only upon recieving your defence on 04/03/2014 that parking eye became aware of the circumstances surrounding your visit to site. As a result of the points you had raised we invited you to provide a copy of you blue badge within our reply to your defence. At this juncture a letter was sent to yourself stating that as we had become aware of a number of circumstances out of your control, that the decision was made to attempt to settle with you on a without prejudice basis.

Subsequently,we received a letter,informing us of the circumstances surrounding your case with a copy of your blue badge and other supporting evidence. Unfortunately this correspondence was issued to an incorrect department, so a small delay occurred in having this further information passed to our enforcement team for further review. It is not the intention of parkingeye to issue a parking charge to someone who was legitimately using the site, especially given the circumstances in this instance. Parkingeye run a dedicated appeals department so that if a a motorist wishes,they can appeal their charge and outline the circumstances of their visit to the applicable car park. Each appeal is then reviewed on a case by case basis, however we completely understand that on this occasion, regrettably, that circumstances meant you were unable to do so.

Had the facts of this charge have been brought to light prior to a county court claim being issued to yourself, parkingeye can confirm that this case would have been resolved much more expediently.

After receiving the further information outlined above and all the applicable evidence, a further review of this case was conducted by a senior member of the department and parkingeye then began taking steps to cancel this case with the county court.

Therefore parkingeye can confirm that now the full facts of this case have been presented to us, this charge (and county court claim) are now in the process of being cancelled with the court. Please be aware that it may take some time for the court to fully update their records. However we can confirm that no further action will be taken by parkingeye and we now consider this case closed.

Whilst parkingeye could not have reasonably known the unfortunate circumstances surrounding your visit to the hospital, we would like to take this opportunity to apologise for any distress this matter may have caused.

Kind regards,

(non illegible scribble)

ParkingEye Enforcement Team

Methinks they doth protest too much. Pathetic Jackanory episode from PE.

Nothing about their business model churning out fake parking tickets EVER gives a flying (text removed by MSE Forum Team) about the circs of the driver (fact). MSE Board Guides don't panic - a camera looking merely at a car arriving and leaving NEVER shows anything about the motorist's genuine business or circumstances or whether they are disabled.