Parking Eye Ticket for ALDI Margate - what next?

purplesparkles

So on reflection I'm fairly certain I don't have a case to argue that the procedure hasn't been POFA compliant. I think my argument boils down to the following in that case:
1) ParkingEye has no standing or authority to form contracts with drivers in this particular car park, nor to pursue charges.
2) The signage in the car park was inadequate.
3) Not allowing a reasonable grace period. *The car was parked for 11 mins over.*

With that in mind I'm not sure how I argue that the case differs from that of Beavis. The two examples Umkomaas gave don't seem to be relevant. Any suggestions?

Now I have looked up other ALDI Parketing Eye examples but aside from those points mentioned I can't find anything else that's relevant. Any thoughts on what I may have missed?

Lastly ALDI have told me to write to them with receipts. This seems to be the standard approach judging by the FB page and other posters on this forum.

beamerguy

purplesparkles wrote: »

So on reflection I'm fairly certain I don't have a case to argue that the procedure hasn't been POFA compliant. I think my argument boils down to the following in that case:
1) ParkingEye has no standing or authority to form contracts with drivers in this particular car park, nor to pursue charges.
2) The signage in the car park was inadequate.
3) Not allowing a reasonable grace period. *The car was parked for 11 mins over.*

With that in mind I'm not sure how I argue that the case differs from that of Beavis. The two examples Umkomaas gave don't seem to be relevant. Any suggestions?

Now I have looked up other ALDI Parketing Eye examples but aside from those points mentioned I can't find anything else that's relevant. Any thoughts on what I may have missed?

Lastly ALDI have told me to write to them with receipts. This seems to be the standard approach judging by the FB page and other posters on this forum.

Your points above differ from Beavis.
Beavis overstayed about an hour and then queried the charge and was it reasonable ... the rich judges thought it was.

You say ...
1) ParkingEye has no standing or authority to form contracts with drivers in this particular car park, nor to pursue charges.

Probably your main point if you can prove that.

It is still wise to persue Aldi requesting a cancellation as you are their customer.

Bear in mind that it has been said many times that Aldi take a cut of the charge which of course is not in the interests of customers

Fruitcake

purplesparkles wrote: »

So on reflection I'm fairly certain I don't have a case to argue that the procedure hasn't been POFA compliant. I think my argument boils down to the following in that case:
1) ParkingEye has no standing or authority to form contracts with drivers in this particular car park, nor to pursue charges.
2) The signage in the car park was inadequate.
3) Not allowing a reasonable grace period. *The car was parked for 11 mins over.*

With that in mind I'm not sure how I argue that the case differs from that of Beavis. The two examples Umkomaas gave don't seem to be relevant. Any suggestions?

Now I have looked up other ALDI Parketing Eye examples but aside from those points mentioned I can't find anything else that's relevant. Any thoughts on what I may have missed?

Lastly ALDI have told me to write to them with receipts. This seems to be the standard approach judging by the FB page and other posters on this forum.

Are you absolutely sure? Does the NTK mention the period of parking? Not just arrival time and departure time, but does it state how long the vehicle was parked? If it doesn't, it is non POFA 2012 compliant.
There are many other points that must be met. You really need to go through the NTK line by line and check that it meets each and every POFA requirement, line by line.

Print both off then go through POFA and tick of the parts that are met by the NTK. Anything left unticked at the end is a POFA failure and therefore fails keeper liability.

purplesparkles

Fruitcake I'm absolutely sure. The NTK does mention the period of parking.

purplesparkles

beamerguy I'm not sure that the following is actually relevant:
1) ParkingEye has no standing or authority to form contracts with drivers in this particular car park, nor to pursue charges.

The initial Parking Charge Notice says:
The signage, which is clearly displayed at the entrance to and throughout the car park, states that this is private land, the car park is managed by ParkingEye Ltd...

Does that invalidate the point? Sorry if I sound like an absolute idiot. I'm just trying to familiarise myself with all of the standard terminology.

purplesparkles

beamerguy ALDI say that they don't receive income from their carparks. This was in a FB message from the:
Aldi do not receive any revenue from these parking measures.

Ralph-y

"1) ParkingEye has no standing or authority to form contracts with drivers in this particular car park, nor to pursue charges.

The initial Parking Charge Notice says:
The signage, which is clearly displayed at the entrance to and throughout the car park, states that this is private land, the car park is managed by ParkingEye Ltd...

Does that invalidate the point? "


nope ....

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]The Operator has to provide evidence, in the form of a contract, between themselves and the landowner.



not even a redacted one is good enough

have they provided onr yet?

good luck

Ralph:cool:
[/FONT]

purplesparkles

Ok great, thanks Ralph. They haven't provided one, so yes I will lead with this.

Castle

purplesparkles wrote: »

beamerguy ALDI say that they don't receive income from their carparks. This was in a FB message from the:
Aldi do not receive any revenue from these parking measures.

As far as the tax man is concerned; all of the revenue belongs to Aldi BUT Aldi then has to pay out the same amount to the parking company for services rendered.

Redx

simple edict

"question everything, accept nothing"