Advice please Parking Eye at Leisure World ticket already paid

watchingthepennies_2

Hi
I wonder if someone can give some advice on this situation.
Husband drives company car and received a PCN via his work, the PCN had already been to lease company and then onto his employers. Employers contacted him explaining he was liable and paid up on his behalf to avoid the additional charge. Husband paid employer the same day.


Details sent on to him and we then realise it is a PCN and look into it a bit further.


Ticket issued by Parking Eye whilst husband using the Leisure World Cinema in Southampton. We've contacted the cinema and complained, they have suggested we appeal and send receipts etc.


So question is - can you appeal after you have paid? Is there a different course of action he should take because his employers have paid? He wants to put it down to experience and doesn't want to involve employers. Naturally being MSE I want to recover it! Any advice? Thanks in advance.

Redx

the leasing company should have followed the BVRLA advice from jan 2014 , naming the keeper , so eventually he should have received a pcn as keeper of the vehicle (nobody knows who was the driver , it could have been me for example)

once these things are paid its difficult or impossible to get the money back, but you are welcome to try

have a look at the website challengethefine and register for starters

watchingthepennies_2

Thanks for the information

Savvy_P

I was posted (late December)one of these charges, and initially sent a response stating mitigating circumstances (2machines did not work, couldn't enter reg, almost no car had ticket etc) however that quickly got rejected as they are not interested in mitigating factors, they gave me an extra few days to come up with evidence.

I then sent this an an attachment to the rejects part of the website. It is an adapted (point about harbour land) from a template on here, and it worked.

It read:

Dear ParkingEye Team

Re: PCN No. Xxxxxxxxxx

I 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).The Car park is Harbour land which is not relevant land under the Protection of Freedom Act 2012. As the registered keeper, I am not liable for this charge. I decline to name the driver.
c). As keeper I believe that the signs were not seen, the wording is ambiguous and the predominant purpose of your business model is intended to be a deterrent.
d). There is no evidence that you have any proprietary interest in the land.
e). Your 'Notice' fails to comply with the POFA 2012 and breaches various consumer contract/unfair terms Regulations.
f). There was no consideration nor acceptance flowing from both parties and any contract with myself, or the driver, is denied.
g). This is not a 'parking ticket' - it is an unsolicited invoice.


Your clients should be thoroughly ashamed of the shoddy way you treat consumers visiting their premises. The landowner will be made fully aware of this matter and your response, which I will forward to their CEO when I complain in writing and via social media, as appropriate.

Parking firms like yours fail to demonstrate even a basic understanding of customer service. The reputation of your business model appears to be more akin to a protection racket than 'parking management'. Your ATA may offer sound-bites about driving up standards or fight for motorists' rights but in reality they are not a regulator; they merely exist to represent the interests of paying members, in order to gain access to DVLA data. The public have no faith in the private parking industry and, as far as I have seen, your firm has not shown itself to be any different than the ex-clampers with whom you share a membership.

The purpose of this communication is:

1. Formal challenge
There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. As such, you must either rely on the POFA 2012 or cancel the charge. I suggest you uphold this challenge now or alternatively, send a rejection letter - subject to accepting my claim for costs as clearly stated below, since you have no case.

2. ''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 - 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,

Half_way

If the money has been paid by your Husband then it looks like this could be an expensive lesson.

Your Husband should post up his company car terms paying particular attention to any mention of fines penaltys or statutory charges or anything else like that exactly word for word

Getting your money back has been made a little bit harder as :
its a company car and the company has paid
Your husband has paid

As mentioned the terms and conditions here are key, as is the employer/employee relationship

options open to you/him are:
Have a chat with someone at work over this to try and get his money back ( using the all important terms and conditions for the car) - this is not a penalty, statutory charge or fine.

Talk to the lease company - again to get a re-fund mentioning the all important T&Cs as above

Get in touch with Parking eye in an attempt to challenge the ticket, and if a POPLA challenge is successful then demand a full refund ( popla challenge chances high - PE chances low)

Get in touch with whatever idiot at leisure world took on, or is responsible for allowing such a disreputable company as Parking eye to operate on their land and demand a re-fund

either which way go to http://challengethefine.com