quick Parking eye advise please help !

Herzlos

dave.giy2004 wrote: »

I think they just look it up in the number plate Database.

That's the problem. The expectation of confidentiality in the doctors visit is blown purely by sending a letter saying the car was there. So you could argue any automated invoice based on being in a doctors car park is sufficient to violate the DPA.

enfield_freddy

and after all , the car park belongs to the surgery and data protection applies there.


"if" the OP was able to get a DPA ruling on this , it could potentially close down every PPC on hospital land.




softly softly , get the DPA behind you , then pass this on to others.

enfield_freddy

photo from PE enclosed? , slam dunk DPA failure.

JAYLO

Hello REX X and others who have supported me. Here is a copy of the letter I will be posting soon. Please let me know if OK. JAYLO

This is in relation to the PCN received when I visited Luton Airport recently.


APCOAParking
PO Box 222
Lowton Way
Hellaby
Sheffield
S98 1NX

Date: 13th April 2015


Dear Sirs

Re: PCN No. LM10133165

I challenge this 'PCN', issue date 1/4/2015, which the keeper received on11/4/2015, on these main grounds:

a). The sum does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss, nor is it a coreprice term. It is a disguised penalty and not commercially justified.
b). The keeper believes that the signs were not seen, the wording is ambiguousand the predominant purpose of your business model is intended to be adeterrent.
c). There is no evidence that you have any proprietary interest in the land.
d). Your 'Notice' fails to comply with the POFA 2012 and breaches variousconsumer contract/unfair terms Regulations.
e). There was no consideration nor acceptance flowing from both parties and anycontract with the keeper, or the driver, is denied.
f). This is not a 'parking ticket' - it is an unsolicited invoice with as muchmerit as the publicly-derided £80 taken unlawfully from customers.
(g) Due to airport bylaws the vehicle keeper cannot be held liable anyway.

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

Parking firms like yours fail to demonstrate even a basic understanding ofcustomer service. The reputation of your business model appears to be more akinto a protection racket than 'parking management'. Your ATA may offersound-bites about driving up standards or fight for motorists' rights but inreality they are not a regulator; they merely exist to represent the interestsof paying members, in order to gain access to DVLA data. The public have nofaith in the private parking industry and, as far as I have seen, your firm hasnot shown itself to be any different than the ex-clampers with whom you share amembership.

The purpose of this communication is:

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

2. ''Drop hands'' offer
The extravagant 'parking charge' is baseless but I realise that you may haveincurred nominal postage costs. Equally, I have incurred costs to date, forresearching the law and responding to your junk mail dressed up to impersonatea parking ticket. It is clear that my costs and yours, at this point, do notexceed £15. Therefore, this is a formal “drop hands” offer. I remind you of theduty to mitigate any loss, so withdraw the spurious charge within 35 dayswithout further expense and I will not pursue you for my costs. If you persistthen I will charge in full for my time at £18 per hour plus my out-of-pocketexpenses and damages for harassment.


3. Notice of cancellation of contract
I hereby give notice of withdrawal from this alleged 'contract' which was neverproperly 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 decideto use - IAS or POPLA, then the contract ends immediately on the date of theirdecision (whatever the outcome) so my notice of cancellation still applies. TheConsumer 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 EUConsumer Rights Directive, that express consent is obtained for consumercontracts now - not implied consent - and that information is provided in adurable medium in advance.

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

By replying to the challenge you are acknowledging receipt and acceptance ofpoints 2 and 3 above. If you decide to persist with this unwarranted threat, Iwill be put to unnecessary expense and hours of time in appealing or defendingthis matter. As such, you will be liable for my costs and a pre-estimate of myloss - and in contrast with yours, mine is genuine - is that this sum will belikely to exceed £80.

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

Umkomaas

Why are you posting this on a ParkingEye thread?

pogofish

JAYLO - Post this on your own thread please. Don't hijack an entirely unrelated thread!

JAYLO

Again, I do apologise. I am new to this forum, but only being told off today. Again...SORRY.

Will not post here again.

trisontana

JAYLO wrote: »

Again, I do apologise. I am new to this forum, but only being told off today. Again...SORRY.

Will not post here again.

He is your original thread . Post on there.:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5217520