Parkingeye PCN ignored now notice of court HELP!

Redx

its not an accusation,

its a fact that the advice on here changed to APPEAL in feb2013

it is also a fact that I appealed 2 invoices for relatives dated july and august 2013 when I checked on here a year ago (I still have copies of those pcn,s too) so there is no doubt at all in my mind (or the other regulars on here) that the NEWBIES sticky thread was updated around april 2013 to reflect APPEAL - DO NOT IGNORE

so the falsehoods are exactly what I said - incorrect facts

this is also a falsehood too

Parkingeye PCN ignored now notice of court HELP!

its NOT a notice of court, that would be an MCOL from Northampton

its not even an LBCCC but it could have been if PE had sent it , yet its merely a debt collector threatogram from DRP, nothing more, nothing less, and definitely NOT a notice of court

I accept now that you meant ABP for BPA , but I went off YOUR POST and the BPA reference which is BRITISH PARKING ASSOCIATION so clearly it was typo, but a very significant one

yes you are and were confused, hence why I spell it out in full black and white, no frills , no platitudes , no BS

I tell it how it is, and I make no apology for being extremely blunt in my factual replies to anyone on here

ampersand

Exactly so, Redx and Goldfish, just felt the errors didn't need further spelling out.

I'll put the kettle on for everybody.......

Umkomaas

Apologies for saying BPA land, I meant to Associated British Ports land but I guess where it happened at this point doesn't make much difference.

Whoops, major blooper. This is seriously! The issue of 'not relevant land' is a distinct possibility here (is this Southampton Town Quay by chance)?

There's a major issue and investigation between the DVLA and PE currently about issuing PCNs here and I'd have thought PE won't want to be going near a court while this investigation is ongoing.

Do a search here on STQ

And read the latter part of this blog from the Parking Prankster:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/as-parking-caught-issuing-charges-under.html

Redx

Umkomaas wrote: »

Whoops, major blooper. This is seriously! The issue of 'not relevant land' is a distinct possibility here (is this Southampton Town Quay by chance)?

There's a major issue and investigation between the DVLA and PE currently about issuing PCNs here and I'd have thought PE won't want to be going near a court while this investigation is ongoing.

Do a search here on STQ

exactly what I was thinking when the ABP explanation came up for BPA, puts a totally different complexion on the issues raised, but this person really need to get the facts straight and give us pure facts from now on

ie:- if its not relevant land, then a complaint should be made asap to the DVLA about this

read this lengthy discussion about POPLA and IGNORE A PCN OR NOT here from april/may 2013 https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4606145

especially posts #15 , #16 , #17 and #27

the advice given to people is quite clear (appeal to the ppc and then to popla)

Goldfish93

Yes it is southampton town quay. I'll check out it out Umkomaas - thanks

Redx

its the ones by biker paul mainly (B M)

like https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4995553

and this debt collector one https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5035872 even though it says rossendales, its the same for any debt collector one

edit, I also forgot to include the parking prankster one here too http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/

Umkomaas

Goldfish93 wrote: »

Yes it is southampton town quay. I'll check out it out Umkomaas - thanks

I've also edited my post above with a link to the Parking Prankster blog - do read that, it is very latest info about PE and ABP and the investigation by DVLA.

Coupon-mad

You need to simply send an email to Parking Eye using this email addy:

[EMAIL="enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk"]enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk[/EMAIL] (put the PCN number and 'Southampton Town Quay' in the subject line)

...pointing out that the charge should be cancelled because:

- as keeper you are not liable since this land is not 'relevant land' under the POFA 2012.

- if they should proceed to court you will include that point in a robust defence.

- after all this time it is impossible to identify the driver with any certainty as the car was at that location more than once over the years.

- if they should now proceed to a small claim and subsequently lose the case, then you will be claiming your full costs due to their unreasonable and vexatious behaviour, especially as the DVLA are currently investigating the entire issue and they lost a landmark POPLA case months ago re this Port. So you can show the Court that PE are well aware of the fact they cannot pursue PCNs issued regarding this land under the POFA.

- In addition, you are aware from letters in the public domain from Associated British Ports (that you will also use in your defence) that the signage was recently deemed to be inadequate and they instructed ParkingEye to change it and add more signs. This was much later than the parking event so the old inadequate signs would have been the ones PE are relying upon.

- Also it is a fact that not all bays are marked as red and blue bays, so the signs at the time (which mentioned only those bays) failed to create certainty of terms with drivers who may have parked elsewhere. Indeed such signs formed no contract at all with drivers who parked elsewhere.

- As registered keeper and in the absence of any evidence of where the car was parked you must assert that no contravention of the signs occurred.

- As registered keeper you are not liable.

- There is no commercial justification for the charge either. If they try to rely upon PE v Beavis then you will be asking for a stay of any claim pending the court of Appeal outcome in Feb 2015. In view of that pending CoA decision it would be a complete and indefensible waste of the court's time and your own to be pursued in yet another small claim trophy case where PE are known to make a loss every time anyway, whether they win or lose.

- In view of the above points, to pursue the claim now would be wholly unreasonable and vexatious. Give them 21 days to confirm the charge is cancelled and to immediately cease the repeated harassment of the debt collector letters aimed at the wrong party (the registered keeper) and using wording that misstates the legal position.

At the time the info on this forum was to ignore so I did

If you could just remove that statement from your first post you'd be less likely to get rather annoyed replies! You are one of several people who Googled and read old forum results - you can't blame the forum for the fact you didn't click off old threads to page one and read the wealth of 2013 advice at the time (when in fact PE were already suing people left, right and centre and absolutely no-one would have told you to ignore a PE PCN). So please just tidy up the first post, bearing in mind others are reading it first, like I just did, and I was all set to put you right until I saw the above posts already had! If you want to have something to blame for getting this far and missing the advice you should have read, blame Google and they way it shows you 'most similar' wording forum results but doesn't weed out anything old.

Goldfish93

Thanks Coupon_mad - I will tidy it up and sorry I'm sorry of it sounded like I had blamed the forum that was not my intention. I like the advice on the forum and yes I now know I was obviously reading an old post.
I am very new at posting on forums (this was my first time) so bear with me please.

Coupon-mad

We know most newbies aren't forum savvy and we will certainly bear with you and help you quash this one!