Parking Eye Reply - They say we can't win - Please Help

14wrence

Hi All,

I have used the template appeal letter to Parking Eye. They have now sent a reply, saying "HHJ Maloney QC has recently presided over a court hearing (ParkingEye v Barry Beavis and Martin Wardley) Regarding the amount of ParkingEye's parking charges and found that a parking charge of £85 could not be considered an unenforceable penalty, and has ruled in ParkingEye's favour."

They then say that the rest of the queries I sent in are of a generic nature a number of which they have seen before, and have sent me a list of FAQ's that they believe answer them.

They then say that if I appeal to Popla, we will not be able to pay the reduced £60 fine, and must pay the £100 too.

As the car was parked there two nights on the trot. (Did not know until I got the first letter some time later it was not to be parked at) I am also expecting the same response to my second appeal, which was in effect the same as the first.

Do we need to bite the bullet and pay the reduced £60 (x2) while we still can?

Please see links to the letter:
[IMG][/img] and [IMG][/img]

hoohoo

[STRIKE]You should always believe ParkingEye. They have never been known to attempt to deceive motorists.[/STRIKE]

Herzlos

They are lying to you. There is a reason we call them ParkingLie.

The Beavis judgement they are quoting is currently pending appeal, and if you take it to POPLA with the forum based guide you will almost certainly win.

I'd report them to the DVLA, BPA and Trading Standards, for lying about legal matters to try and pressure you into paying them.

Browntoa

the answer is no , appeal as per the newbies thread to PE and then POPLA where YOU will win

Marktheshark

Did they send you POPLA codes ?

kensiko

Do not pay would be the advice given by most I would think!

Ignore their rejection and use the POPLA code to do the second (and more than likely successful) appeal.

Follow these posts and the usual argumnets should win your case:
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=64350585&postcount=3
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/62180281#Comment_62180281

Don't forget never admit who was driving and stick to the arguments in the templates and don't go into details about your actual 'story'.

bod1467

@hoohoo - Should have put a smiley with that else the OP might not see the sarcasm.

OP - The Beavis case has been to the court of appeal and we await the outcome. Funny how PE didn't mention that in their reply, eh?

Just appeal to POPLA (I assume they provided a code?) following the guidance in post #3 of the NEWBIES sticky thread. You should easily get this seen off, so the £60 becomes £0 - for both of them. (Separate yet identical POPLA appeals for both invoices).

hoohoo

Wait! Sorry! Having a funny turn there. ParkingEye ALWAYS attempt to deceive and are the masters of the half-truth, partial-truth and misdirection.

In this case they are partially right and the situation is as clear as mud. Beavis has been appealed, but the verdict is awaited. If Beavis wins, you will win at POPLA. You therefore need either to cut your losses and pay now, or file a POPLA appeal and hope Beavis wins.

You could delay until the POPLA deadline/reduced payment deadline, whichever is first.

There may also be other reasons which will win at POPLA/the courts.

enfield_freddy

how nice of the legal team overlooked by there solicitor in sending that letter that gives inaccurate information.


they have cleverly missed out on several aspects 1: the bevis case is for a site where they "rent" the land , 2: there is an ongoing appeal . for what its worth and if only to add to there rather large pile , report this to the SRA.

14wrence

If anyone is interested, here is the reminder (sent after appeal letter to them for some reason) with their evidence.

[IMG][/img]

neil.net

The case they have quoted is currently awaiting judgement at the Court of Appeal (bet they didn't tell you that?), judgement due shortly. Also, the Judge in the original County Court case does specify that his judgement is “…based on one particular set of the Claimant's standard notices and terms, which may have varied from time to time, a point which should be checked in other cases”.

ParkingEye seem to be using the case they "won" as a licence to justify their charges in all cases. They are trying to use precedent without understanding what it means.