Fine sent to a previous address what to do

Coupon-mad

I mean Rod Mckie himself doesn't reply IIRC, but a minion fobs most complainants off telling them to 'appeal to ParkingEye'. You will see that in the resulting threads when you search for the word 'McKie' which will only find WB threads here.

Clearly it is too late for appeal and clearly the car wasn't parked in contravention at all so you need to press WB as the principal and keep copying in PE enforcement team every time.

Make yourself a thorn in the side of both - and keep at it - and don't forget/overlook your defence deadline as long as you acknowledge the claim within 14 days first.

cts_casemod

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I mean Rod Mckie himself doesn't reply IIRC, but a minion fobs most complainants off telling them to 'appeal to ParkingEye'. You will see that in the resulting threads when you search for the word 'McKie' which will only find WB threads here.

Clearly it is too late for appeal and clearly the car wasn't parked in contravention at all so you need to press WB as the principal and keep copying in PE enforcement team every time.

Make yourself a thorn in the side of both - and keep at it - and don't forget/overlook your defence deadline as long as you acknowledge the claim within 14 days first.

Exactly why I ask. I've been looking at a number of threads and people complain that even when they mail Rod Mckie they get a response from WB Parking among other irregularities.

I'm using that as evidence, if the need to go to court arises. Since I haven't received any PCN I haven't been able to make an appeal to POPLA. It would also be an interesting subject to debate with all the propaganda about electric vehicles and efforts done to reduce range anxiety. I've been in the news with my car in particular, so perhaps I can go again, this time with: "Owner of Electric vehicle going to court for charging his electric vehicle" and of course, the old one, getting WB and PE to quantify a genuine pre-estimate of loss for using a free charging service on a designated bay with a prohibition to park.

I Think Ill upset WB parking and copy both Mckie and Parking eye enforcement to the party now.

Coupon-mad

It would also be an interesting subject to debate with all the propaganda about electric vehicles and efforts done to reduce range anxiety. I've been in the news with my car in particular, so perhaps I can go again, this time with: "Owner of Electric vehicle going to court for charging his electric vehicle" and of course, the old one,

I like that idea - bad publicity will focus their minds. But you can't argue 'no pre-estimate of loss'.

cts_casemod

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I like that idea - bad publicity will focus their minds. But you can't argue 'no pre-estimate of loss'.

Can they claim other vehicles were waiting to use the services?

I'm thinking in something along these lines:

To whom it may concern,

Further to my previous e-mail I politely asked for the signatory "WB parking" to identify itself.
I also asked for the matter to be escalated for the WB CEO, which I copy in this e-mail, remembering that I hold WB liable for this unwarranted harassment.
To fulfil the previous request, I am also copying Parking Eye enforcement, to which an e-mail was sent previously.

Every day I see the government making promises to cure “range anxiety”. There is a significant propaganda and money going into charge structures, which I mostly see unused.

A breakthrough happened in 2011, when Ecotricity, and Welcome break join forces with a new scheme – the world’s first national charging service network at Welcome break, which received some interest by the media. Apparently there is a dark side, however, that that drivers like myself are penalized for using such facilities. I wonder how people will react to this on a court case and what will be the image, in Particular to Welcome Break.

I have made very clear that the reasons for the extended stay are not in breach of any parking rules and have asked for the court claim to be withdrawn as there are is no prospect of success in the courts.

bod1467

Court order? Do you mean "court claim"?

WD Parking? Do you mean WB Parking?

cts_casemod

bod1467 wrote: »

Court order? Do you mean "court claim"?

WD Parking? Do you mean WB Parking?

Thanks bod1467.

So you guys think I should add some more or not bother all all?

I'm starting with the court statement or whatever it is called now.

Coupon-mad

I would absolutely send that to Rod McKie (not to 'WB Parking') and to ParkingEye's Enforcement bunch.

You could link the Govt Policy:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/237412/dft-circular-strategic-road.pdf

Which makes it mandatory that the 2 hours rest is statutory free PARKING for resting, eating/drinking before continuing a journey. By definition, the Government's advice to 'take a break, tiredness kills' plus the clear policy about parking, CANNOT include the time spent in a petrol station/charging an Eco vehicle which is maintenance, not resting. And add the case PE lost at Peartree as a link too - it was THIS WEEK and very useful to you.

Kep pushing them, keep saying they have no case.

As regards the claim, acknowledge it online, leaving the defence box BLANK, which then extends the time to submit a defence, to a month from the court papers date.

cts_casemod

I sent this to McKie one or two days ago:

Dear Mr. McKie

I refer to the .. of ... 2015 when I stopped at the New Port Pagnel Welcome Break services, to recharge my electric vehicle.

Given that the APRN cameras are located at the entrance of the services and, therefore, make absolutely no distinction between a vehicle which is parked and one which spent additional time in the petrol station or associated vehicle maintenance facility, an automatic penalty was issued. Haven't received any penalty charge notice trough the post, I promptly contacted both WB Parking and Parking Eye on receipt of the court order explaining I was using a designated charging bay for vehicle maintenance for the whole of the period, which a person is very clearly 'allowed' to, and there is no time limit sign for doing so at the services in cause. Indeed the Department for Transport sets a 2 hour rest period which any reasonable person would assume is in addition to time spent in the petrol station/charging a car, since no sign says otherwise, and carrying out maintenance on a vehicle is not 'parking/resting' which is required by parliament, to be a statutory rest time, remembering that a case was won 'ParkingEye v Mrs R' - Claim C4FC524M 21st June 2016 Banbury County Court, which was also about the 2 hours rest time to park at Peartree Services Oxford. The Judge held that the signs stating "two hours free parking" would lead the reasonable person to assume it was time spent parking in the car park and that did not include any additional time spent in the petrol station or associated vehicle maintenance facility.

Given the above, WB as principal, remain fully liable for the actions of their agent and the actions in this case are vexatious, reason why WB as principal, should step in and cancel the 'charge'.

Sincerely,
...

You think it covers everything, coupon-mad?
I copied PE at the time, too.

Coupon-mad

OK keep bothering them both even if they do not respond! Your point - and your defence because of what was really happening - seems valid. Really can't see PE pursuing this if you concentrate now on the 'charging the vehicle near no relevant signs' fact.

cts_casemod

Yesterday when I popped on WB I had a chat with the security on charge. I have been explained that inevitable situations such as breakdown or possibly the need for servicing (charge) could be dealt with them if notified. That was something I didn't knew.

What I wasn't able to do was getting the penalty canceled, with the usual (...) that only PE can do it and so on. The manager on duty itself wasn't there only the people below him, although I am not sure they have a say on the matter.

So my question... Shall I take the actual court papers and either ask them to cancel it then and there or provide me with a written confirmation that they cannot in fact do it? I could pop there again next Thursday.

Also, are the 14 extra days counted from the date I did the acknowledgement or are added (a total of 28) to the date this was originally issued (the 6th)?