Parking Eye PCN, appealed, confused

LoveNorfolk

Okay, so this reply was received from BPA:

"If a parking operator does not know the name of the driver, and the appellant chooses not to name them, then they will ask for additional information. This does not mean that the appeals process has been exhausted. (Nothing was sent, but either way they still have exceeded the BPA appeal time?!)

If you wish for us to review the matter further you will need to supply us with more details such as the correspondence you have received from Parking Eye. Upon receipt we will then be in a position to advise further."

Appeal was done as RK, when begging letter to name driver was received this was not responded to.

What details would you send them? NTK, begging letter, letter saying price had gone up? As that is all that was received as far as I know. They've already have copies of appeal confirmations. So they can take over 77 days for an appeal even if no further information has been forthcoming? Sounds like BS to me!?!

LoveNorfolk

Bump! Any help much appreciated

Coupon-mad

I would send them all those letters and reiterate that the driver will not be named, hence why you were perfectly entitled to expect a POPLA code in good time and not a begging letter pretending a keeper has any obligation to name the driver (contrary to the words of the POPLA Lead Adjudicator in 2015, a barrister who was an expert in parking law). Re-state that this is sharp practice and contrary to the information issued by the BPA and the DVLA 3 or 4 years ago and appears to be an example of operators 'getting away with' not issuing POPLA codes indefinitely on any old excuse.

This is an example of watering-down of the BPA CoP, in allowing operators to ignore the previous clear 35 day limit and to mislead and harass keepers. Say that! Be scathing. The BPA are used to it. They represent the interests of (and all too often, they defend) the indefensible 'industry'.

LoveNorfolk

Thanks Coupon-mad, clear and concise as always! I'll sort that out when I have a mo, they'll not hurt to wait a few days

LoveNorfolk

Sent! I really am losing my patience with these idiots.
If you want to read what was sent:

Dear Joanna Barnes,


I reply to your email dated 6/9/16, I am not satisfied with the answer that was provided considering your member is clearly breaching your CoP in more than one place. It would seem that you hold little regard to the people your CoP is put in place to protect and that your members should follow, and giving the impression you side with the member. This surely is not the case!?!!


The driver was not named and neither shall they be. This does not give your member the right to withhold a POPLA code which should have been provided in good time, for example the 35 days as outlined in your own CoP, not the now 80 days that have passed,and is not an excuse to send a begging letter pretending a keeper has any obligation to name the driver. Nor does it give them the right to break CoP by hiking the alleged charge BEFORE an appeal has been resolved, as you know this charge must not rise whilst an appeal is in progress. It is shameful that you allow such malpractice to continue.


What has been provided so far is sharp practice and contrary to the information issued by the yourselves the BPA and the DVLA 3 or 4 years ago, and appears to be an example of operators 'getting away with' not issuing POPLA codes indefinitely on any old excuse.


It appears to me to be deliberate attempt by yourselves to allow your members to get away with anything they like and reading your missions and values on your website, quite clearly an early failing of your 5 year strategy outlines core objective “putting the consumer at the heart of our thinking”. From what I have experienced so far this is a downright lie, with the consumer being ignored and not provided with what is a rightfully theirs after an appeal – a cancellation of the charge or a POPLA code. It would appear the consumer is not at the heart of your thinking, but instead the interests of the indefensible 'industry' which you appear to be defending.


What I have experienced is an example of the watering-down of the BPA CoP, in allowing operators to ignore the previous clear 35 day limit and to mislead and harass keepers. It will not be tolerated.


To allow a thorough review of this complaint I have attached:

• Parking tickets from the day in question 9/6/16
• The parking charge notice received in the post dated 15/6/16
• Appeal confirmation screen shots as previously sent, dated 20/6/16 and 20/8/16 respectively
• The begging letter from Parking Eye for the name of the driver dated 15/7/16
• The letter reminding me of the charge and the rise of it dated 20/8/16

To reiterate what what the complaint is and where you member has failed:

• 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 now 80 days with no response, despite no information for investigation being submitted by myself the registered keeper.

I trust this gives you everything you require to investigate and I await a more suitable response.


Yours sincerely,

Umkomaas

A nicely directed kick up the rear for her and the BPA. Looking forward to reading the response. Well done on your tenacity.

The_Deep

A five star kick up the Kyber, well done.


You now hold all the good cards, and the most likely outcome, if they are daft enough to persist, is a slam dunk win in PoPLA/court.

Now is the time to warn them that, should you prevail you will be seeking monetary compensation for the time you have wasted on this matter due to their unreasonable behaviour,

CPR27.14.(2)(g)

LoveNorfolk

Cheers guys, I'm kinda enjoying it lol. Was sent before adding on CR27.14.(2)(g). I guess I'll hang onto that in case they're stupid enough to persist.

I've visited the car park today as it's not far from where I work. There is no mention on the actual charge amount as you enter on the sign just that there is a charge, is that allowed? I've looked at the main signs (not adjacent to the machines I must add, might pop back when a mo) and they do state £100 but also have illegible writing and are 8ft up, don't PPC's love that height! Have photographed them and will save for POPLA.

Redx

luv u lovenorfolk you really made my day with that superb response to their smoke and mirrors

I too would love to see their response to that kick up the backside !!!

even better, I would love to see her face when she read that letter which shows her how badly she does her "job"

if they only investigate breaches of the CoP , let them investigate all those breaches you put before her in black and white

sincerely , well done , I am still laughing out loud now , lol

oskiwowwow

Thanks for the posts here, LoveNorfolk. I've just got a reply from the same Joanna Barnes who is denying that PE is in the wrong having used an incorrect address for our NTK etc. She might end up with a lot of problems in her inbox soon! Arrgh. This thread has been helpful too, cheers!