Parking Eye PCN, appealed, confused

Coupon-mad

''unfortunately the driver was still not named''

Dear Joanna,

Knowing what you know about this industry for which the BPA is one of the apologists, would YOU name the driver when you know as well as I do that the registered keeper has more protection, due to the POFA (e.g. the law sets out mandatory wording for postal NTKs, requires 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and the ceiling of the charge is legally - not just under the BPA 'advisory' CoP - capped for a keeper at the PCN sum only, but not capped for a driver, as far as recovery in a court is concerned)?

Rhetorical question, no need to reply but saying 'unfortunately the driver was still not named' is not 'putting the motorist at the heart of your thinking'. If you really did care at all about consumers, you would say 'fortunately'.

However, genuine question for an answer please - if ParkingEye had issued a non-POFA PCN (or when dealing with non-POFA-using companies like CP Plus or Smart, for example) would you feel it was 'unfortunate' and encourage a keeper who is not liable, to name a driver, who could be liable? If so, why? Why and under what possible justification, would the BPA tell a consumer to name the potentially liable party when you know the person contacting you is not liable?

kind regards,

LoveNorfolk

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Dear Joanna,

Knowing what you know about this industry for which the BPA is one of the apologists, would YOU name the driver when you know as well as I do that the registered keeper has more protection, due to the POFA (e.g. the law sets out mandatory wording for postal NTKs, requires 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and the ceiling of the charge is legally - not just under the BPA 'advisory' CoP - capped for a keeper at the PCN sum only, but not capped for a driver, as far as recovery in a court is concerned)?

Rhetorical question, no need to reply but saying 'unfortunately the driver was still not named' is not 'putting the motorist at the heart of your thinking'. If you really did care at all about consumers, you would say 'fortunately'.

However, genuine question for an answer please - if ParkingEye had issued a non-POFA PCN (or when dealing with non-POFA-using companies like CP Plus or Smart, for example) would you feel it was 'unfortunate' and encourage a keeper who is not liable, to name a driver, who could be liable? If so, why? Why and under what possible justification, would the BPA tell a consumer to name the potentially liable party when you know the person contacting you is not liable?

kind regards,

Ouch! Should I send that off Coupon-mad? Parents still waiting on a letter from PE with PoPLA code, I'm doing a little research to be able to start with them once it arrives.

Coupon-mad

It's up to you; that's my own style of scathing reply if a body appears to be badly fobbing me off...

You could write your own, or do nothing.

Personally I would certainly take exception to Joanna saying 'unfortunately' because that gives away that the consumer is certainly not 'at the heart of the BPA's thinking' in this instance. You could write that in a less scathing way, certainly.

LoveNorfolk

Checking the first posts of this thread, I'm not sure what I''ve read that the NTK is not compliant, it does say they have 'the right to recover unpaid charge', but not that RK is liable. Does this count as it's different to my Excel one that says driver is liable very boldly!

LoveNorfolk

Coupon-mad wrote: »

It's up to you; that's my own style of scathing reply if a body appears to be badly fobbing me off...

You could write your own, or do nothing.

Personally I would certainly take exception to Joanna saying 'unfortunately' because that gives away that the consumer is certainly not 'at the heart of the BPA's thinking' in this instance. You could write that in a less scathing way, certainly.

I like scathing!

Coupon-mad

LoveNorfolk wrote: »

Checking the first posts of this thread, I'm not sure what I''ve read that the NTK is not compliant, it does say they have 'the right to recover unpaid charge', but not that RK is liable. Does this count as it's different to my Excel one that says driver is liable very boldly!

Yours is not a (rare) 'non-POFA' ParkingEye version so there isn't much scope to suggest that their usual one isn't compliant. POPLA certainly believe it is compliant when they issue that type.

But in my scathing email draft to the BPA I haven't suggested this on is non-POFA, quite the opposite. I've said 'if it was, would you be telling me the same thing?'.

LoveNorfolk

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yours is not a (rare) 'non-POFA' ParkingEye version so there isn't much scope to suggest that their usual one isn't compliant. POPLA certainly believe it is complaint when they issue that type.

But in my scathing email draft to the BPA I haven't suggested this on is non-POFA, quite the opposite. I've said 'if it was, would you be telling me the same thing?'.

Thanks Coupon-mad, I meant that more for putting PoPLA points together in case I had wrong end of stick. No actual code from PE, yet, so just getting some bits together to have a base to go from when they do.

LoveNorfolk

Still no PoPLA code, this is the latest reply from Joanna after my last email:

"Ultimately although the code of practice provides a guideline for how long an appeal should take, the time taken to resolve an appeal will vary depending upon the information supplied by the person appealing. For instance if an operator asks for more information to process an appeal.

It is not for the BPA to comment either way on what you have stated, as it is entirely subjective, depending upon the individual’s point of view. However if you have expressed concerns that you feel the appeal was taking too long, then of course we empathise with your situation.

Ultimately, we are only able to address issues as per the code of practice, and we are sorry to note you have not had the response as yet as previously advised by Parking Eye. We will contact Parking Eye and ask for a copy of the appeal outcome and provide that by return mail for you."

Umkomaas

I've not poured back over the entire thread, but I could well have posted this previously. This is the requirement placed on BPA operators by the BPA (which was instigated, afaiaa, by the DVLA).

“the following practices may be considered as Code breaches and must not be continued:
• Asking the motorist to enter into additional correspondence to obtain a POPLA code
• Failing to include a correct and/or valid POPLA Code within the Rejection correspondence
• Issuing a POPLA Code with a date identifier which is significantly different from the date of rejection
• Appearing to indicate that the issue of a POPLA Code is conditional on driver details being supplied “

Maybe it's time for a complaint to the DVLA that the BPA are turning a blind eye to this requirement they placed on their operator, blocking the motorist's ability to deal with this expeditiously. Send the DVLA copies of all your correspondence with the BPA.

And make sure you copy Joanna in on your complaint to the DVLA - let her know you mean business and you are not prepared to swallow her mealy-mouthed, PPC-partial responses.

LoveNorfolk

**Edit

Just seen your last post Umkomaaas don't know how I missed it!
She ain't going to get this email til Monday I guess, so I will have a look at putting together a complaint to them, am I best snail mail or email to the DVLA and Joanna? Just thinking about how best to send them all the emails together, whether printing them is best, or downloading and attaching them to the email.

****

And still we wait......had to send another email!

Dear Joanna,


It is now 9 days since your last email and despite your assurance that you will contact ParkingEye to provide me with a copy of the appeal outcome so that I may appeal to PoPLA, no correspondance has yet been received.


As you will be aware PoPLA require an appeal within 28 days of an appeal rejection from an operator as seen on their website here: https://popla.co.uk/faqs-and-advice , as per your email dated 12th September 2016 you state that ParkingEye had rejected the appeal I submitted. This means that from today (1st October 2016) I have 8 days left in which to submit an appeal. This cannot be done without the PoPLA code I have asked for on numerous occasions.


This is now looking like a deliberate attempt by ParkingEye to withhold the required PoPLA code with the intent to allow the 28 day frame to lapse, and prevent me from lodging an independent appeal which as you know I am fully entitled to.



If this code is not forthcoming and should this matter proceed to court where I will defend it, these emails will be used as evidence and I will be seeking monetary compensation for my time being wasted in this matter due to the unreasonable behaviour of your member (CPR27.14.(2)(g)) as mentioned in my email dated 10th September 2016 as this is now beyond a joke.