ParkingEye 'Ticket' person with additional needs

Aimeejaynee

Morning all, after a bit of advice. My sister were issued a Parking Notice from ParkingEye back in the summer of 2014, in the B&M Chelmsford Store car park. She did a quick Google search to find all the websites (this one mainly) saying to ignore and not pay, that you would recieve several letters etc but to ignore it. The posts when ive looked were dated back in 2012 and 2013. She recieved a letter in the post for overstaying the 2 hour limit by 22 minutes. The first one for £50, second says for £90 and she's just recieved a third saying it's the final letter with a 'debt collection' and amount is now £150.

The reason for asking SO late is thst she has some additional needs and has been hiding the letters hoping it will go away. We've just found the 3 letters and she's broken down and sobbed hee heart out saying she doesn't want to go to prison or court (bit extreme I know). What do we do? Do we continue to ignore? Or write and appeal and explain she has needs on her behalf?

Thanks:mad:

nigelbb

Aimeejaynee wrote: »

Morning all, after a bit of advice. My sister were issued a Parking Notice from ParkingEye back in the summer of 2014, in the B&M Chelmsford Store car park.

Is that date correct? According to B&M they didn't open their Chelmsford store until August 2015 http://www.bmstores.co.uk/news/chelmsford-chaos-as-bandm-opens-first-store-in-city

Guys_Dad

You sit tight unless and until you get genuine court papers from PE. Be warned that they are litigious and she may get them, so be prepared, although they seem to have waited for some time.

Additional needs may not be sufficient to make this go away and you rightly see that she should have acted sooner and have missed the appeal boat.

Redx

the advice here changed 3 years ago in march 2013 , due to POFA2012 and is roughly when I started needing advice to fight private parking charges from sumbpanies like Excel and PE , and especially in 2014 the advice was appeal - dont ignore , but older threads would have said ignore

The_Deep

Is that date correct? According to B&M they didn't open their Chelmsford store until August 2015

I doubt if any of it is correct, especially not this part.

she did a quick Google search to find all the websites (this one mainly) saying to ignore and not pay,

We've just found the 3 letters and she's broken down and sobbed hee heart out saying she doesn't want to go to prison or court

Imagine her distress therefore if she was charged with DWDCA, She does not have to go to court, all she has to do is pay the charge. No points, no Mags, no fines.

This may sound hard, but I have very little sympathy, people who drive cars must accept that certain actions will have unwelcome consequences.

Aimeejaynee

Yes sorry, I ment summer 2015. Must have been August time as we visited the store when it were still a Tescos at the begining of the year .

Aimeejaynee

I'm assuming she's too late to appeal now, being months after the incident...

Aimeejaynee

ill have to find the date of the original fine letter. It were around November time which was strange as incident was in August/September. I need to find details from her properly with regards to dates on letters etc.

Coupon-mad

Guys_Dad wrote: »

You sit tight unless and until you get genuine court papers from PE.

Aimeejaynee wrote: »

I'm assuming she's too late to appeal now, being months after the incident...

I disagree; I would never wait for PE to issue court papers and it is never too late to contact them. I have never left the ball that much in their court and have always - since 2013 when they became litigious, anyway - suggested robust contact to try to get the charge cancelled. Right up till LBCCC stage you can email or appeal (or both) and get them involved in responding & send them receipts/bank statements and other reasons to cancel a PCN.

I think the registered keeper (or this OP in her sister's name as keeper, but maybe giving the OP's postal address*) should use PE's appeal webpage found by Googling 'ParkingEye appeal' now - ignore the debt collectors - and and explain that the driver was a genuine customer but that these letters are causing siginificant mental distress to the recipient. Explain that she - the keeper - has mental health issues (or whatever the medical condition is). Tell them that her family has now complained to B&M Head Office and the Store Manager and that as it's highly likely she was an occupant of the car on that shopping trip any few minutes delay was likely to have been caused by the effects of her depression/mental health/medication (or whatever). Do not say who was driving but you can say she was likely to have been an 'occupant' of the vehicle and I think you should.

And do complain to the retailer as well- Head Office and locally to the Store Manager!

Tell B&M that this is someone so distressed that she thought she would end up in prison (sounds like she may have a long term mental health condition which makes her a protected person under the Equality Act 2010). Harassment of a person with protected characteristics is against the law but all parties need to be told about the effect this is having on her health and the fact that, if she was a passenger in the car (do not say who was driving) her mental health was quite possibly the reason for the minor alleged overstay anyway. As such, she has a legal right to a 'reasonable adjustment' of time and the PCN should be cancelled.

And attach a copy of any proof of spending/info about her medical condition if you/she's comfortable to divulge something about it.




* I suggest giving another family member's other postal address but the keeper's name (your sister) in the appeal, so the reply comes to you instead from now on. She can give ANY address where she can reasonably be contacted, for service of papers and I would do that now.

She sounds too vulnerable to handle the letters now, especially if they dig their heels in because you will need to keep responding to head them off. In the appeal include the statement 'Please note my new address for response and service of court papers if proceedings are envisaged. But I am being assisted by family members who strongly suggest it should not come to that in view of the circumstances as now explained to you, the PCN should be cancelled.'