Letter before CC Claim Received - Advice?

danbl

Hi there

My other half received a PCN from ParkingEye a couple of months ago as she'd pulled up at a train station for 18 minutes whilst waiting for somebody to arrive, not realising that it was a monitored car park. It was night time, the signs in the car park were not lit, the only one she passed was over 10 feet high and she did not leave the car making it nigh on impossible to see.

She appealed via POPLA but it was rejected with them agreeing with PE that the car headlights should have lit the sign. She's now received a "Letter Before County Court Claim" giving her 14 days to pay £100 - are we best off just paying this, or does she have a leg to stand on with the defence re sign visibility? I really don't think the ticket was fair, but don't want to end up paying their costs too!

Thanks in advance

Redx

with judge bingo anything can happen

it may well be that the judge accepts what is said about the poor signage as do I

plus if its a train station then surely bylaws apply ?

and bylaws expire after 6 months

read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread and prepare a rebuttal to the LBC from the latest examples in there , but check if bylaws apply at that car park beforehand, because it may affect the wording

danbl

Thanks for the quick reply. The car park is adjacent to the train station but is managed by Parking Eye so presumably it's private land.

I've read the newbies thread but I think - unfortunately - that PE have done everything "by the book" within the PCN process - they even reference that the letter is "fully compliant with the Practice Direction on Pre-Action conduct" - it all comes down to the visibility of signage

KeithP

You simply cannot assume that the car park land is privately owned.
Which train station?

So you are also assuming that because Parking Eye have said so, the LBA is fully compliant?

You need to do some checking.

danbl

It was Warrington Central station - what's the best way to check if it's privately owned? At no point in the letters so far have they referenced bylaws.

I presumed they wouldn't be stupid enough to draw peoples attention if it wasn't compliant, but appreciate that could be a "hiding in plain sight" tactic - I'll investigate the letter a bit more.

KeithP

Yes, the Parking Eye car park is on private land.

It's the APCOA car park that is on land covered by railway bylaws.

Irishdean

Hi, I am doing an appeal for my daughter for 4 PCNs from Parking Eye when she had paid for the APCOA spaces. Land registry document shows the land is 'owned' by GE Ramsey Ltd, but land is leasehold. If this is leased from First Transpennine Express (who own the APCOA land), then this would still be covered by bye laws wouldn't it?

nosferatu1001

Start your own thread
If you're using a phone and cant see the "new thread" button, get onto a laptop.