ParkingEye Final Notice; no previous letters received

TimVB

My wife (as Keeper) has received a "Final Notice" ParkingEye letter, wanting £85 for a Parking Charge Amount. The alleged infringement took place on 15th July of this year. Their letter states:

"We note from our records that the previous two Parking Charge Notices we have sent you which refer to the Parking Charge issued in accordance with the terrms and conditions for parking at the Crown Wharf Shopping Park, Walsall car park on 15 July 2015, remain outstanding.

The amount now payable is £85. This payment is required within 7 days or further action may be taken.

[and then the usual 'If this letter is ignored blah blah]"

We genuinely did not receive the previous two letters. And no, we didn't receive them and ignore them!

I've read through the Newbies advice (very helpful) but I didn't see advice that covered this particular case. I'd be most grateful for some assistance so that I can respond appropriately.

Redx

treat it as the first notification and appeal on their site using the template letter

then see what happens (they may tell you its too late), or they may issue a popla code , or heaven forbid, they may actually cancel

also try to get a landowner cancellation too, thats the best option AS WELL

fil_cad

All PE want is your cash in there filthy bank account.

ampersand

I note the rate of 'unreceived' letters from parkinglie is increasing.
They use UKMail. Helpfully for them, these show no franking or marking allowing location/date/time of posting to be determined.

Cuts down on stationery costs too, given the intimidating bully sheaves they are fond of sending later.

pould

ampersand wrote: »

I note the rate of 'unreceived' letters from parkinglie is increasing.
They use UKMail. Helpfully for them, these show no franking or marking allowing location/date/time of posting to be determined.

Cuts down on stationery costs too, given the intimidating bully sheaves they are fond of sending later.

But I think this raises a much more interesting issue.

If UKMail provide no proof of postage, the company issuing the invoice can NEVER prove it sent the NTK within the statutory period. If they KNOW that they can't prove the NTK is valid but still demand money, that's pretty much blackmail (as the 1967 Act defines it).

Quentin

pould wrote: »

If UKMail provide no proof of postage, the company issuing the invoice can NEVER prove it sent the NTK within the statutory period. If they KNOW that they can't prove the NTK is valid but still demand money, that's pretty much blackmail (as the 1967 Act defines it).

You are forgetting that they will keep comprehensive records that do show they post off everything in accordance with the procedures to show any judge should they be accused of any blackmail!

nigelbb

I would argue that using UK Mail is not a valid form of delivery as defined in the Interpretation Act 1978 which references "properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document" which is deemed to be delivered (unless proved otherwise)
a) in the case of first class mail, on the second working day after posting;
(b) in the case of second class mail, on the fourth working day after posting.

When the Act was implemented there were no private mail services delivering letters (they were in fact illegal). The reference to 'post' & 'mail' is clearly to the Royal Mail. If the letters were not sent by Royal Mail then the PPC cannot rely on the Interpretation Act to confirm delivery.

pould

nigelbb wrote: »

I would argue that using UK Mail is not a valid form of delivery as defined in the Interpretation Act 1978 which references "properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document" which is deemed to be delivered (unless proved otherwise)
a) in the case of first class mail, on the second working day after posting;
(b) in the case of second class mail, on the fourth working day after posting.

When the Act was implemented there were no private mail services delivering letters (they were in fact illegal). The reference to 'post' & 'mail' is clearly to the Royal Mail. If the letters were not sent by Royal Mail then the PPC cannot rely on the Interpretation Act to confirm delivery.

That's a good point in itself in addition to the main issue I have in that using UKMail you cannot demonstrate when the item was placed in the post.

ampersand

nigelbb wrote: »

I would argue that using UK Mail is not a valid form of delivery as defined in the Interpretation Act 1978 which references "properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document" which is deemed to be delivered (unless proved otherwise)
a) in the case of first class mail, on the second working day after posting;
(b) in the case of second class mail, on the fourth working day after posting.

When the Act was implemented there were no private mail services delivering letters (they were in fact illegal). The reference to 'post' & 'mail' is clearly to the Royal Mail. If the letters were not sent by Royal Mail then the PPC cannot rely on the Interpretation Act to confirm delivery.

#
I put this to Steve BPA Clark at time of my own gavottes with parking lie, Nov/Dec 2013, successful April 2014.

He forced them to re-do everything by the book and intervened subsequently, several times. I don't know if p/lie still use UKmail or similar. This needs checking, as does any envelope of any conduit every pp scumpany uses.

Nigel and pould - current gumment seem to be in process of dumping share-holding in RM, last done in June. Long may it be before that wording is jettisoned.

pould

ampersand wrote: »

#
I put this to Steve BPA Clark at time of my own gavottes with parking lie, Nov/Dec 2013, successful April 2014.

He forced them to re-do everything by the book and intervened subsequently, several times. I don't know if p/lie still use UKmail or similar. This needs checking, as does any envelope of any conduit every pp scumpany uses.

Nigel and pould - current gumment seem to be in process of dumping share-holding in RM, last done in June. Long may it be before this is noticed.

Can you explain that last paragraph. It didn't make sense to me.

Do we need to ask the admins to tidy up this thread? I'm aware we've hijacked someone's thread on their own invoice and this discussion is suitable for a separate thread.

ampersand

re: 'Can you explain that last paragraph. It didn't make sense to me.'

The Deep will salute you for that comment :-)

As Government divested itself in June of half of its remaining shares in RM, I hope that removal of such helpful Clauses as those derived from the Interpetation Act 1978, doesn't occur soon.