Parking Eye Won't Accept The Truth

Mike172

People aren't actually surprised at this are they?

trisontana

Mike172 wrote: »

People aren't actually surprised at this are they?

Not realy, especially as it's Parking Eye. Parking Prankster has reminded us that PE have form over this:-

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/parkingeye-wonder-blunder-legal-team.html

Notice the cheeky bar-stewards even tried to claim £50 of the innocent motorist because of their mistakes.

prowla

Ryan_Bryan wrote: »

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?

I was picking up on the comment in the article which said "He has received a letter from the DVLA confirming the ownership details of the vehicle have now been changed.".

Why the "now"? Does that mean that they hadn't been changed already, and so when the heinous infraction occurred, he was still the registered owner?

I mean, the PPC must have got his contact details from somewhere, so either they had old information, or it wasn't updated at the DVLC.

Hence my comment about the formal appeal process. The option is to follow their process or fight it.

However, all the other already written stuff about the validity of PPCs and so-on still applies; the bottom line is that he has told them it's not his car and it has been verified, so they know it is not his, and thus any further contact could be viewed as harassment and any further demands for money could be demanding money with menace.