Parking Eye Charge Aberdeen

AberdeenIdiot

Hi there, unfortunately I've been a bit of an idiot. This morning I received a parking charge notice from Private Eye for parking in the King Street Morrisons car park in Aberdeen. I immediately hopped online to see if I had to actually pay and saw a whole lot of stuff about appealing to the company and appealing through POPLA without realising that this on applied to England. I sent an appeal to Parking Eye and stupidly identified myself as the Registered Keeper and Driver in their drop down box and wrote in the first person in the appeal. After reading the forums some more and realising the advice about ignoring the charge in Scotland I sent a follow-up appeal with the same details etc. stating that I was in fact only the Registered Keeper and was appealing on behalf of the driver who would remain unnamed. Was just wondering how much I've !!!!ed myself by being an idiot and not ignoring it outright? I've e-mailed Morrisons as well on the off chance that they might revoke it somehow. Should I roll over now and pay the lesser fine?

pogofish

No - Just ignore them unless they send you proper court papers. Which is highly unlikely.

So Morrisons have ditched their old PPC there, Interesting.

enfield_freddy

parking eye (Scotland) + named driver = CC claim


they will however loose your second appeal , and rely on the first


unfortunately , you have no POPLa "saftynet"

ColliesCarer

They include that "Registered Keeper and Driver" box on purpose.

One such purpose could be to trap the unwary into divulging who the driver is when they are under no obligation to do so.

And whilst some might think that, I couldn't possibly comment

Oh wee sleekit (definitely) (but not cowrin, or timorous) beasties..

But don't worry - see pogofish's post

bazster

enfield_freddy wrote: »

parking eye (Scotland) + named driver = CC claim

I have never heard of PE bringing a claim in Scotland, driver identified or not, and there certainly wouldn't be a CC claim because there are no County Courts in Scotland.

Even in England the chances of a non-payer being on the receiving end of a PE court claim are only about 1:10.

n.b. the entry level court in Scotland is the Sheriff's Court, and it's not possible to file a Money Claim Online (PE's weapon of choice) against a resident of Scotland.

enfield_freddy

I stand corrected on the sheriffs court ,


however this is the perfect type of situation for them to try the first attempt ,
also unusual for morrisons to be using this lot north of the border , why would they go to the expense of setting up , after all the press and the CAB notes advising people in Scotland not to pay so basically no income?


we choose to differ on opinions , as I stated above , "just my opinion"

System

No known PE cases in Scotland. Check here

http://crtcases.appas.org.uk/htdocs/court_ppc_count_scot.php

Main issue is the number of times a case is heard north of the border. There can be 3 or more attempts at getting to a result which effectively means that there is a significant loss in collecting such a small amount.

There is more mileage in them bullying people as it is cheaper and more effective

bazster

enfield_freddy wrote: »

I stand corrected on the sheriffs court ,


however this is the perfect type of situation for them to try the first attempt ,
also unusual for morrisons to be using this lot north of the border , why would they go to the expense of setting up , after all the press and the CAB notes advising people in Scotland not to pay so basically no income?


we choose to differ on opinions , as I stated above , "just my opinion"

It is not "just your opinion", it is a factual inaccuracy. You stated as fact that "parking eye (Scotland) + named driver = CC claim".

This is simply not true. It wouldn't even be true of England.

enfield_freddy

correct , as you quickly pointed out its not a CC!




and as stated twice , which you either cannot read or choose not to


"we choose to differ on opinions , as I stated above , "just my opinion"

bazster

enfield_freddy wrote: »

correct , as you quickly pointed out its not a CC!




and as stated twice , which you either cannot read or choose not to


"we choose to differ on opinions , as I stated above , "just my opinion"

You told the OP that he was going to get a court claim against him. You were wrong. If you are going to indulge in speculation then say that's what it is, do not offer guesswork as fact.

enfield_freddy

bazster wrote: »

You told the OP that he was going to get a court claim against him. You were wrong. If you are going to indulge in speculation then say that's what it is, do not offer guesswork as fact.

and for the 3rd and final time of saying " "just my opinion" "


the OP has handed this one to them on a plate , this is the perfect time and for once legal way of them getting a nice new heading on there web page ,


why the hell are PE spending money on that site (as already stated) with very little chance of income.


I'm not going to bother replying again , because you are just repeating the same question when it has been answered!