Parking Eye notice - SUCCESS!!!

Mick_Fleetwood

So, this is what I intend to send, addressed from my employer. Is this OK, or should I outline why their notice fails to comply?


[FONT=&quot]Dear Sirs

Re: PCN No. xxxxx/xxxxx

We challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car, on these main grounds:

a). The sum does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss, nor is it a core price term. It is a disguised penalty and not commercially justified.

b). Your 'Notice' fails to comply with the POFA 2012 and breaches various consumer contract/unfair terms Regulations.

Please see the enclosed receipt from Next Home. This receipt clearly shows the driver made a purchase to the value of £55 in that store. The driver and his passenger then spent time visiting the other retailers at Cardinal Point Retail Park, namely Oak Furniture Land and B&Q.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In addition to this challenge, we will also be writing to the CEO of Next (Mr John Barton), Managing Director of Oak Furniture Land (Jason Bannister) and CEO of B&Q (Kevin O’Byrne) to express our disgust at receiving your notice as a reward for visiting their stores. We will also point out to them that the driver, and indeed our other employees may well think twice before visiting their stores in the future.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The purpose of this communication is:[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

1. ''Drop hands'' offer
The extravagant 'parking charge' is baseless but I realise that you may have incurred nominal postage costs. Equally, I have incurred costs to date, for researching the law and responding to your junk mail dressed up to impersonate a parking ticket. It is clear that my costs and yours, at this point, do not exceed £15. Therefore, this is a formal “drop hands” offer. I remind you of the duty to mitigate any loss, so withdraw the spurious charge within 35 days without further expense and I will not pursue you for my costs. If you persist then I will charge in full for my time at £18 per hour plus my out-of-pocket expenses and damages for harassment.

3. Notice of cancellation of contract
I hereby give notice of withdrawal from this alleged 'contract' which was never properly offered by you and certainly was not expressly agreed. This 'contract' is hereby cancelled and any obligations now end. If you offer - and if I decide to use - IAS or POPLA, then the contract ends immediately on the date of their decision (whatever the outcome) so my notice of cancellation still applies. The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation & Additional Payments) Regulations apply now to every consumer contract, save for a few exemptions, which parking contracts are not. It is the will of Parliament following the EU Consumer Rights Directive, that express consent is obtained for consumer contracts now - not implied consent - and that information is provided in a durable medium in advance.

You have failed to meet these requirements. The foisting of unexpected contracts like this on consumers, by stealth, is a thing of the past.

By replying to the challenge you are acknowledging receipt and acceptance of points 2 and 3 above. If you decide to persist with this unwarranted threat, I will be put to unnecessary expense and hours of time in appealing or defending this matter. As such, you will be liable for my costs and a pre-estimate of my loss - and in contrast with yours, mine is genuine - is that this sum will be likely to exceed £100.

I have kept proof of submission of this challenge. I look forward to your considered reply within 35 days.

Yours faithfully,[/FONT]

(Signed with a squiggle)

Umkomaas

By replying to the challenge you are acknowledging receipt and acceptance of points 2 and 3 above

I can only see points 1 and 3 there.

Coupon-mad

Or this sort of thing just suggested by Gan on pepipoo forum:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=96098

or a hybrid version of your own as long as the driver is not mentioned.

Mick_Fleetwood

Umkomaas wrote: »

I can only see points 1 and 3 there.

Oh yes thanks for pointing that out, I'll correct.

Mick_Fleetwood

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Or this sort of thing just suggested by Gan on pepipoo forum:



or a hybrid version of your own as long as the driver is not mentioned.

Thanks Coupon Mad. I have made some amendments:


[FONT=&quot]Dear Sirs

Re: PCN No. xxxxxx/xxxxxx

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]We can confirm we are in receipt of your speculative invoice for parking charge number xxxxxx/xxxxxx. We can also confirm that we were the Keeper of this vehicle on the date of the alleged parking contravention, 22/11/2014. We understand our details have been supplied to you by the Registered Keeper of the vehicle since it is a lease car.

Please be advised that whilst we are the Keeper of this vehicle, for data protection reasons we cannot confirm who was the driver on that particular occasion. On this basis, you need to comply with the requirements of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('the Act') in order to make us liable as the Keeper.

For this, you need to serve the Notice to Keeper within the stipulated 14 day period, which you have clearly failed to do. Your Notice to Keeper arrived with us on the 12/01/2015, which is clearly more than 14 days after the alleged parking event, 22/11/2014.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]We challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car, on these main grounds:

a). The sum does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss, nor is it a core price term. It is a disguised penalty and not commercially justified.

b). Your 'Notice' fails to comply with the POFA 2012 and breaches various consumer contract/unfair terms Regulations.

c). The enclosed receipt from Next Home clearly shows a purchase to the value of £55 in that store on the date in question. The driver and his passenger then spent time visiting the other retailers at Cardinal Point Retail Park, namely Oak Furniture Land and B&Q.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In addition to this challenge, we will also be writing to the CEO of Next (Mr John Barton), Managing Director of Oak Furniture Land (Jason Bannister) and CEO of B&Q (Kevin O’Byrne) to express our disgust at receiving your notice, as a reward for visiting their stores. We will also point out to them that the driver, and indeed our other employees may well think twice before visiting their stores in the future.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The purpose of this communication is:[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

1. ''Drop hands'' offer
The extravagant 'parking charge' is baseless but we realise that you may have incurred nominal postage costs. Equally, we have incurred costs to date, for researching the law and responding to your speculative invoice. It is clear that our costs and yours, at this point, do not exceed £15. Therefore, this is a formal “drop hands” offer. We remind you of the duty to mitigate any loss, so withdraw the spurious charge within 35 days without further expense and we will not pursue you for our costs. If you persist then we will charge in full for our time at £18 per hour plus our out-of-pocket expenses and damages for harassment.

2. Notice of cancellation of contract
We hereby give notice of withdrawal from this alleged ‘contract’, which was never properly offered by you and certainly was not expressly agreed. This 'contract' is hereby cancelled and any obligations now end. If you offer - and if we decide to use - IAS or POPLA, then the contract ends immediately on the date of their decision (whatever the outcome) so our notice of cancellation still applies. The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation & Additional Payments) Regulations apply now to every consumer contract, save for a few exemptions, which parking contracts are not. It is the will of Parliament following the EU Consumer Rights Directive, that express consent is obtained for consumer contracts now - not implied consent - and that information is provided in a durable medium in advance.

You have failed to meet these requirements.

By replying to the challenge you are acknowledging receipt and acceptance of points 1 and 2 above. If you decide to persist with this unwarranted threat, we will be put to unnecessary expense and hours of time in appealing or defending this matter. As such, you will be liable for my costs and a pre-estimate of our loss - and in contrast with yours, ours is genuine - is that this sum will be likely to exceed £100.

We have kept proof of submission of this challenge. We look forward to your considered reply within 35 days.

Yours faithfully,[/FONT]

signed with a squiggle

Umkomaas

Very clear, and nails the relevant points. I don't think you'll have any more trouble on this one.

PE MO for the past few months is to fold at the stage a forum-assisted initial appeal is received. And you've got the added double 'insurance' of proof of being a genuine shopper and a spend >£30 (which seems to be the secret tipping point in PE/retailer contracts).

Grimble

I wonder what would happen if you went back to next with the goods and asked for your money back as they do not want you as a customer as their agents ticketed your vehicle. If everyone who got a ticket did this, how long would the PPC's last?

Guys_Dad

Grimble wrote: »

I wonder what would happen if you went back to next with the goods and asked for your money back as they do not want you as a customer as their agents ticketed your vehicle. If everyone who got a ticket did this, how long would the PPC's last?

Hardly fair if retailer is one of many in a retail park (as this case) and has no say over the appointment of a PPC.

Granted, if sufficient people complained to all of the retailers, then something might happen.

Define "sufficient" !!

The_Deep

Hardly fair if retailer is one of many in a retail park (as this case) and has no say over the appointment of a PPC.

But the retailer can complain to the landlord, who may even be in breach of the terms of the lease.

Mick_Fleetwood

Grimble wrote: »

I wonder what would happen if you went back to next with the goods and asked for your money back as they do not want you as a customer as their agents ticketed your vehicle. If everyone who got a ticket did this, how long would the PPC's last?

I don't think my dad would be too happy, as the purchase was a Christmas gift for him, which is now hanging in his living room! I suppose I could sneak in under the cover of darkness to recover it.

On a serious note, I have also written to the CEO of Next plc:


15th January 2015

Dear Mr Barton,

Re: Parking Eye Car Park Management

I am writing to tell you about a recent experience at a Next Home store, located at Cardinal Point Retail Park, Tamworth.

My wife and I visited the store on 22nd November 2014 to purchase some Christmas gifts. We chose two lovely picture frames, which we have since given to family members containing pictures from our wedding last year.

Our retail experience in your store was good, as it always is.

Following our purchase at your store, we took a couple of hours to peruse some of the other stores at the retail park, namely Oak Furniture Land and B&Q.

On 12th January 2015, we received a ‘Parking Charge Notice’ from Parking Eye Car Park Management for the amount of £100 (or £60 if we pay within 14 days). The notice informs us that we exceeded the maximum stay of 3 hours, by 29 minutes.

I thought it a good idea to write to your good self, as Chairman of the Board, as our enjoyable retail experience in November is now completely tainted, and we will certainly think twice before visiting the same Retail Park again.

I am sure that retailers such as Next do not think that placing a limit on shopping time is good for business, but by employing a private company to levy wholly excessive parking charges on your customers, it seems that you are indeed implementing a shopping time limit. Is it unreasonable to spend 3 hours 29 minutes visiting three stores?
[FONT=&quot]
I understand that it may indeed be the landowner who has contracted Parking Eye to ‘manage’ the car park. If this were the case, I urge you to challenge them to review their policy.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Thank you for taking the time to read this letter, and I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the matter.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Yours sincerley,[/FONT]