Parking Eye still at it!

fisherjim

Couple are given £70 fine saying they'd parked at Aldi for 19 HOURS when really they'd visited twice on different days


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3315563/Couple-given-70-fine-saying-d-parked-Aldi-19-HOURS-really-d-visited-twice-different-days.html?offset=100&max=100&reply=105450474&jumpTo=comment-105450474#comment-105450474

Castle

Loved the quote from the article;-
'ParkingEye operates a fair and audited appeals process and encourages people to appeal if they feel there are mitigating circumstances.'
So not being there is considered mitigation now!

Parkrage

Castle wrote: »

Loved the quote from the article;-
'ParkingEye operates a fair and audited appeals process and encourages people to appeal if they feel there are mitigating circumstances.'
So not being there is considered mitigation now!

But Parking Eye/POPLA don't pay any attention to 'mitigating circumstances'!

4consumerrights

New POPLA are supposed to consider "mitigating" factors in the appeals.

However, how Parking Eye can explain their ANPR system errors as being "mitigating" beggars belief.

I note that many of the comments on the article are still suggesting that people ignore the charge and that no action can be taken. Even after some people mentioned Beavis as well.


The article further supplements the blogs by Parking Prankster and other evidence received that their system is not fit for purpose.