ParkingEye rejected appeal and sent POPLA code

chekov123

Hello

I parked in a local shopping centre car park and went to the library and shops. The parking was 3 hours for free.


I went to leave before this time was up and noticed a new store round the back and went to have a look. The car park seemed to be a separate one so I thought it would be OK and stayed a bit longer.

I received a "Parking Charge Notice" from ParkingEye in the post 2 weeks later saying I had overstayed by 33 minutes and was charged £100 or £60 if paid in 14 days. By the time I received it there were only 7 days left.

I sent in an appeal and it was rejected by post which I received yesterday. My appeal was based on the following: (I sent it as the registered keeper and not driver but did not point it out specifically):

• The car was not improperly parked. I asked for evidence of where the car was between the times mentioned.
• Inadequate signage. Photos enclosed of the second car park with no signs visible in half of it.
• Unreasonable and disproportionate terms. £100 is not a realistic prediction of loss.
• Unethical use of ANPR (an unreasonable and disproportionate response to parking management) as per theInformation Commissioners's Office 2013 Data Protection Code of Practice for CCTV. It's a poor area and the shops there are mostly discount stores.
• I am aware of my rights under the Citizen's Harassment Act 1997. Any more letters from them will be kept in evidence of harassment.
• I also sent evidence of purchase from one of the shops in the the form of a till receipt

I sent a copy to the local councils and local MP.


The MP said "It is difficult for us to give advice on parking fines, but we do believe that it may not be possible to enforce a parking fine when it is given for a parking infringement on private land.
We aren’t totally sure about this so can’t definitely say it is the case, but that does seem to be what the situation is."

The response from ParkingEye was:

"You have provided evidence of purchase.
However, please be advised that this did not meet the discretionary criteria set by the landowner in this case.
We are therefore writing to advise you that your recent appeal has been unsuccessful.
This is because you have not provided sufficient evidence to show that you did not break the terms and conditions on the signage."

The sent the POPLA form and "as a gesture of good will" have further extended the "discount" period another 14 days, half of which are already up because it was dated last week.

What should I send to POPLA?

Do I have a chance of winning and not going to court?

I am feeling a lot of stress right now but have got this far because this seems really wrong!

DoaM

See post #3 in the NEWBIES sticky thread.

waamo

GPEOL. If you've read the Newbies thread you know what that means. It's a winner. Plus you've cost them £27 to find out you are no pushover.

chekov123

DoaM wrote: »

See post #3 in the NEWBIES sticky thread.

Do you mean "cancelling the contract"?

Does this all really work? I'm totally traumatised but hanging in there. I thought my letter was pretty strong, do they reject most initial appeals?

Also, can I still send letters to ParkingEye once they have turned down my appeal?

Not_Scammed

chekov123 wrote: »

Do you mean "cancelling the contract"?

Does this all really work? I'm totally traumatised but hanging in there. I thought my letter was pretty strong, do they reject most initial appeals?

Also, can I still send letters to ParkingEye once they have turned down my appeal?

Of course they turn down most appeals - they have no other way of getting money. It's all part of the scam.

Why would you send them any more letters? You've got what you want from them, the POPLA code, now use it to get the charge cancelled AND cost them £27 as well.

trisontana

"You have provided evidence of purchase.
However, please be advised that this did not meet the discretionary criteria set by the landowner in this case."

Was this "discretionary criteria" (i.e. minimum purchase) mentioned on the parking signs? And who set this limit, was it the landowner or one of the retail stores?

chekov123

trisontana wrote: »

"You have provided evidence of purchase.
However, please be advised that this did not meet the discretionary criteria set by the landowner in this case."

Was this "discretionary criteria" (i.e. minimum purchase) mentioned on the parking signs? And who set this limit, was it the landowner or one of the retail stores?

You just had to be a customer as far as I could see on the sign. I sent the card receipt which did not have the amount I spent on it and what I bought.

trisontana

So yet another made up rule by Parking Eye

beatgreed

I received a PCN from Parking Eye (PE) in November 2014; took until Feb 2015 to get successful POPLA appeal.


I stated in the POPLA appeal that PE had not provided evidence that I'd asked them for: 1) proof that I had not purchased a ticket from ticketless machine, 2) written statement of how they'd incurred a £100 loss from 1 hour of parking they alleged I'd not paid for (quoting Protection of Freedom Act 2012).


PE did not provide evidence to POPLA either, so my appeal was upheld. Thankyou and well done POPLA!


These fraudsters thrive on people's fear. If you know you're right - keep going!

chekov123

Well done beatgreed. Thanks for your support.

ampersand

trisontana wrote: »

So yet another made up rule by Parking Eye

#
Another one to be tested: ' this did not meet the discretionary criteria set by the landowner in this case."

I'd happily confront the landowner with this[aside from the usual legal nonsensery which parkinglie invoke/invent]and ask for said 'discretionary criteria' to be fully categorised and quantified.