Parking Eye - Got my Cousin in the early hours.

14wrence

Hi,

My cousin recently has been ticketed by Parking Eye.

He has started a new job working in a bar in the town, and so works a very late shift. I think it would have been about 9pm to 2am(ish).

He asked a Policeman where he could park and was instructed to go in Windsors world of Shoes car park.

He parked there 2 nights on the trot (so is expecting a second ticket soon).

I told him I would help him with the appeal, so we are still at the stage where we will be appealing to the PPC and I was just going to use the template letters in this forum.

My question though is should I include anything about these facts:

1) It was after dark, and the signs were ineligible
2) The Police directed him to use that car park (I suspect this is mitigating though)
3) The shop in question had been closed for 3 - 4 hours and was not due again to open for another 6 - 7 so car park would not have been needed.

Many thanks for any help.

Fruitcake

Item 1) of your post is relevant, the other two are not so don't bother with them.
2) is mitigation and 3) is already covered by No GPEOL.

14wrence

Thanks Fruitcke.

There is also this paragraph on the template.
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.


He was obviously not shopping so shall I just get rid of all sentences regarding being a client - or leave, as he could still be a potential client?

Fruitcake

14wrence wrote: »

Thanks Fruitcke.

There is also this paragraph on the template.
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.


He was obviously not shopping so shall I just get rid of all sentences regarding being a client - or leave, as he could still be a potential client?

It is up to you whether you believe it is relevant. It is known as the Ranty Bit and sometimes has to be removed if there is a character limit when doing online appeals. If it is not relevant or does not help your cousin's case then you should exclude it.

bod1467

1) "the signs were illegible" is what I think you meant.

Although ineligible is a term many of use think is relevant to PPC signage.

14wrence

bod1467 wrote: »

1) "the signs were illegible" is what I think you meant.

Although ineligible is a term many of use think is relevant to PPC signage.

Ooops - glad you noticed that.

Herzlos

Fruitcake wrote: »

Item 1) of your post is relevant, the other two are not so don't bother with them.
2) is mitigation and 3) is already covered by No GPEOL.

I think 3 is worth mentioning to re-inforce the GPEOL issue. There can't be a loss because the shop wasn't even open.

14wrence

As I mentioned earlier, my cousin unwittingly parked in the same place for his first two shifts on his night time job, and he has since had another ticket for the next night. This is the letter I sent. (apologies Herzlos - I only saw your post after I had sent)

Was just wondering if I should send exactly the same letter twice - only changing the PCN Number Reference...... Or should I re-word to say it is the second one?

Dear Sirs

Re: PCN No: XXXXXXXX

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) As the keeper I believe that the signs were not seen, the wording is ambiguous, it was dark the signage was badly lit thus illegible and the predominant purpose of your business model is intended to be a deterrent.
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 various consumer contract/unfair terms Regulations.
e) There was no consideration nor acceptance flowing from both parties and any contract with myself, or the driver, is denied.

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. 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.

Regards

tykesi

It's the same situation so should be dealt with in the same way so yes, send the same reply.

Fergie76

Send the same letter with the details of the new ticket. They will just send you the same amended reply, so why should you go to any extra bother, when they don't?

14wrence

OK cheers guys..