Parking Eye Won't Accept The Truth

trisontana

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/mr-justice-newcastle-driver-says-8940712


A club singer has refused to dance to the tune played by Parking Eye after they demanded £70 fees for a car he has not owned for six months.
Colin Leggett was sent a demand after cameras caught his former car breaching parking rules at Sunderland General Hospital.
He sent an email giving Parking Eye the name and address of the new owner - but they told him he had to make a formal appeal which he is refusing to do.

I Hope that Mr. Leggett does not go the "ignore" route. It could be costly for him.

I like this nonsense trotted out by PE:-

“ParkingEye operates an industry-leading audited appeals process as detailed on the parking charge notice and encourage individuals to appeal if they feel there are extenuating circumstances,” a spokesman said.

bod1467

Erm ... he's discharged any liability by naming the owner/driver, so why are PE insisting he needs to make an appeal?

prowla

If the transfer of ownership was registered with the DVLS, then PE are out of order.

enfield_freddy

after they demanded £70 fees for a car he has not owned for six months.


He has received a letter from the DVLA confirming the ownership details of the vehicle have now been changed.




slack reporting by the newspaper , WHEN were the details updated , hell he,s stood by the car , ask the new owner to check the V5

HO87

The point at which the DVLA record was updated is irrelevant and is no business of PE. Provided the OP has supplied the necessary details to comply with POFA then that is the end of it.

He clearly wasn't the driver and neither was he the keeper (whether you apply the POFA definition or a more everyday one) so on what basis is it that they suggest he appeals? Oh, yes I forgot there is the addendum to Schedule 4, para 94 which states:

Where an operator with a registered office in the parish of Euxton in the County of Lancashire has served what passes for a notice to keeper roughly in accordance with paras 8 or 9 and that in purported satisfaction of that notice a keeper has disclosed the name and a serviceable address for the driver (or keeper) then if the said operator doesn't like the response they can stamp their feet and act like complete numpties and demand that the respondent does what they say rather than simply comply with this schedule.

prowla

The point about the DVLA was that's where the parkingco get their info from; I'm sure they've heard lots of excuses over the years.

If the DVLA weren't updated, then the parkingco have said it needs to be a formal appeal/whatever.

I'm not sticking up for the leeches, but just saying there could be a logic behind it.

Ryan_Bryan

prowla wrote: »

The point about the DVLA was that's where the parkingco get their info from; I'm sure they've heard lots of excuses over the years.

If the DVLA weren't updated, then the parkingco have said it needs to be a formal appeal/whatever.

I'm not sticking up for the leeches, but just saying there could be a logic behind it.

With over 7,000 posts on a consumer forum I would have hoped you'd known better. Why should anyone who wasn't even involved in any parking of said car have to jump through PPCs hoops? Would you expect or accept that idea if it were you?

The_Deep

I Hope that Mr. Leggett does not go the "ignore" route. It could be costly for him.


I hope that he does precisely that, he has done all that is required of him. Were PE daft enough to issue a claim he could immediately counter and, with his media connections, no doubt hand them a lot more grief than they bargained for.

bod1467

The_Newspaper_Article wrote:

Colin Leggett was sent a demand after cameras caught his former car breaching parking rules at Sunderland General Hospital.

Is that a potential DPA breach? What reason does PE have in advising a former owner that the new owner (or a nominated driver) has attended hospital?

trisontana

bod1467 wrote: »

Is that a potential DPA breach? What reason does PE have in advising a former owner that the new owner (or a nominated driver) has attended hospital?

That raises a very good point regarding patient confidentiality and hospital parking . Not only in this case, but in any situation where the driver is not the RK. There could be instances where the former does not want the latter to know they have been attending hospital.

The_Deep

There could be instances where the former does not want the latter to know they have been attending hospital.

Especially if they are seeing a Pox Doctor.