Parking Eye PCN, appealed, confused

LoveNorfolk

Cheers RedX, I wonder if you would mind checking this draft email to the BPA? I'm not sure how much detail is needed, but feel it gets the point across and shows I'm serious!
Dear sir or madam,

I write to you as registered keeper of vehicle registration INSERT HERE, who received a parking charge notice by post from your member Parking Eye on INSERT DATE, PCN xxxxxx. They allege that the vehicle overstayed the time purchased within one of the car parks they manage. This was appealed online via their appeals form on their website on INSERT DATE of which I have a screen shot of the confirmation of appeal, on INSERT DATE. I waited for any response from the appeal, but all I received was a letter to reveal the driver and another reminding me of the balance they wanted and that it needed to be paid. I was bemused to receive nothing within this correspondence that stated a decision to the appeal, or a POPLA code should it have been unsuccessful. I appealed online again using their form on their website, including the details as submitted originally and making them aware of their absence of a suitable and required response, requesting them to either cancel the parking charge notice or issue a POPLA code. This was done on INSERT DATE and another screen shot taken of the confirmation. As you are aware, your Code of Practice states that a member should follow this procedure for appeals, “If at first you only acknowledge the appeal, or your reply does not fully resolve it, normally we would expect you to seek the additional information you require from the motorist and accept or reject the appeal in writing not more than 35 days after the information required to resolve it has been received from the motorist.

As you will know, Parking Eye monitor only the time on site and not the amount of time parked, therefore, if the 10 minute period as outlined in their signs within the car park to arrive, park up, read the signs and purchase a ticket have been adhered to and the minimum exit time of 10 minutes as outlined within Clause 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice has been adhered to, the time parked has not been exceeded. As such, Clause 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice protects the keeper against such allegations and will be used if an appeal to POPLA should become necessary.

I request you contact your member to resolve this issue and make clear why they find it suitable to ignore your code of practice when I am abiding by their appeal process, and to either cancel the parking charge notice or provide me with a POPLA code as now asked on two separate occasions.

Please find attached both screen shots of the appeal confirmations.

Umkomaas

Sorry, waste of time trying to get the BPA to intervene to cancel the ticket. POPLA is where that can happen.

If you're complaining that PE haven't responded by the 35 day deadline, then concentrate just on that, don't muddy the water with other stuff that the BPA won't get themselves involved in.

Your second paragraph is too much of a wall of text, it needs to be broken up with sensible paragraphing, otherwise it loses its impact.

If you are complaining that they've failed to respond in 35 days you need to show the date of your appeal and the 35th day date by when the response should have been received.

I can't make out how late PE is in responding, but if it's only a day or so, don't expect the BPA to move mountains on your behalf - they represent the PPCs (and PE is their largest contributor) and they don't often bite the hand that feeds them.

Redx

try to keep it concide but with all the information required , make it clear that 2 appeals have gone in , with both dates , and cite the BPA CoP breach for the first 35 day failure , make it clear you are reporting 2 breaches with both CoP references

so please tweak it as above plus break it up so it reads better, like umkomaas pointed out

good luck

LoveNorfolk

Thanks guys, I wasn't write sure what was needed, I know BPA won't do anything with overturning the parking charge notice, I just wanted to get it all laid out.. I'll sort that chunk of text too. I'll go through it when I've a moment and sort it out. The first appeal is way over the 35 day response time, however, the second appeal is not yet, however I don't want my parents to be sitting ducks if this is an underhand (when isn't anything with these guys?) tactic by parking eye.

Redx

this one was a recent win at popla over grace periods , for 11 minutes in this case

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=106376&st=40&start=40

a useful thread if Parking Eye dont cancel

LoveNorfolk

Redx wrote: »

this one was a recent win at popla over grace periods , for 11 minutes in this case

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=106376&st=40&start=40

a useful thread if Parking Eye dont cancel

Much appreciated!

Mahone1302

Umkomaas wrote: »

It will be a bit different to the Excel one. Excel conflate their NtK to hint at keeper liability (to confuse the recipient) but they fail to meet the necessary criteria to hold the keeper liable. When challenged (by those 'in the know'), they will admit they are not using PoFA, but to the uninitiated ......

Whereas PE deliberately omit the PoFA paragraph where, for whatever reason, they know they can't legitimately pursue the keeper.

But why do they fail to follow POFA? It's not as if it's difficult to do. The most difficult bit is getting the notice out within the timeframe required. I've had an Excel NtK (which I'm currently fighting) and it was within the required timescale, but doesn't conform to POFA due to the wording. It's bizarre, it's such a useful tool for PPC's yet they fail dismally at using it!

Umkomaas

ParkingEye certainly know what they are doing in the context of PoFA, and them not sending a compliant NtK will be for a deliberate reason, not a random error, I would suggest.

LoveNorfolk

Okay, it's still long I know, but I have tried to section it and include the 4(!) breaches I have found, not really sure I can shorten it any more than this?!!

Dear Sir or Madam,


I write to you as the registered keeper of vehicle XXXXXXX, of which I received PCN ref: XXXXXXX dated XXXXXX, and wish to complain about your member Parking Eye breaching Clauses within your Code of Practice.


Firstly, Clause 13.4 of your Code of Practice states that, “You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.” Parking Eye allege that the vehicle overstayed the time purchased and only state on their signs as you enter the car park in question that “a maximum of 10 minutes is permitted to allow the purchase of a valid parking ticket after the vehicle has entered the car park”, but do not advertise the grace period in which to leave. ANPR cameras are on the entrance and exit road of the car park, they have failed to take into account any grace periods when issuing the parking charge notice. Clause 13.4 of your Code of Practice protects the keeper against such allegations and will be used if an appeal to POPLA should become necessary.


Clause 22.4 of your Code of Practice states “If a driver or keeper appeals a parking charge you must review the case and decide whether to: uphold the parking charge and explain why it was issued and should therefore be paid, or reduce or cancel the charge and take no further management action other than informing the driver.” I appealed online via their website on 20/6/16 and have a screen shot of the confirmation of appeal. Received after the appeal was a letter dated 15/7/16 asking for details of the driver, stating the appeal had been referred for further information and that the charge would be put on hold for 28 days from the date upon the letter, this was not responded to as no further information was to be provided. A letter dated 16/8/16 was then received on 20/8/16 as a reminder of the balance and that it needed to be paid or the charge would increase to £100 if not paid by 21/8/16, one day after the letter arrived with no reply to the appeal, therefore breaching Clause 22.6 “When you receive a appeal about the issue of a parking charge, you must stop work on processing the charge immediately. You must not increase the charge until you have replied to the appeal.”


No correspondence has been forthcoming with a decision to the appeal, or a POPLA code should the appeal have been unsuccessful. On the date of sending this email (4/9/16), 77 days have now elapsed since the first appeal was submitted on 20/6/16, when a response should have been received by the 35th day, being 24/7/16. As your Code of Practice, Clause 22.8 states “You must acknowledge or reply to the appeal within 14 days of receiving it. If at first you only acknowledge the appeal, or your reply does not fully resolve it, normally we would expect you to seek the additional information you require from the motorist and accept or reject the appeal in writing not more than 35 days after the information required to resolve it has been received from the motorist. It is acknowledged that in exceptional circumstances, an investigation into a appeal may take longer than 35 days after such information has been received and in these instances the motorist must be advised accordingly and given a date by which they can expect a resolution. If this date cannot be achieved then the motorist must be written to again and a revised resolution date agreed. We may require you to demonstrate that you are keeping to these times.”


Due to Parking Eye not providing a suitable response, I appealed online again, repeating the process using their website, including the details as submitted originally and making them aware of their absence of a suitable and required response, requesting them to either cancel the parking charge notice or issue a POPLA code. This was done on 20/8/16 and another screen shot taken of the confirmation. On the date of sending this email (4/9/16), 16 days have elapsed of the second appeal being submitted, and still I have heard nothing in reply to this, which does not give me confidence that Parking Eye, having seemingly ignored the first appeal, will even respond.


To summarise:

• Your member has breached Clause 13.4 of your Code of Practice by failing to take into account any grace periods within the car park before issuing a parking charge notice.
• Your member has breached Clause 22.4 of your Code of Practice by failing to respond to the first appeal sent, with a decision or a POPLA code, and have yet not responded to a second appeal sent because of this.
• Your member has breached Clause 22.6 of your Code of Practice by increasing the charge when they have failed to respond the appeal submitted.
• Your member has breached Clause 22.8 of your Code of Practice by failing to accept or reject the original appeal within the time frame of 35 days as set out within it, allowing it to reach 77 days with no response, despite no information for investigation being submitted by myself the registered keeper.

I request you contact your member to resolve this issue and make clear why they find it suitable to ignore your code of practice when I am abiding by their appeal process, and to either cancel the parking charge notice or provide me with a POPLA code as required on both occasions an appeal has been submitted.

Please find attached both screen shots of the appeal confirmations.

Umkomaas

Why are you still banging on about the grace period to the BPA. I advised previously not waste your breath on going down this road with the BPA - it's one for POPLA. What do you want from the BPA by including this in your complaint?

Or is it me wasting my breath?