Parking Eye ticket advice needed

sam4145

Thanks - I did try Googling it but didn't come up with anything, it was always about how much time I have to appeal rather than how long they have to respond. Their website says it can take up to 28 days, but my question is if they respond later than this are they out of time to continue trying to enforce it? Surely they have to respond within the time frame they say. I think the 6 years to take legal action is more about after this stage of the process - you're not suggesting they have 6 years to reply to my appeal surely?!

Quentin

In effect they do!!

They are unregulated

All creditors have 6 years to start legal proceedings

nosferatu1001

Yep, they have whatever time they like
The BPA can try to pressure them, but they realistically wont especially not parking eye.

sam4145

Ok thanks - disappointing but nevermind. When the rejection does come through I will follow the guidance on this forum to respond!

sam4145

So I did get a letter yesterday from them, but all it said was they were still considering my appeal. I'm a bit confused - I didn't think they accepted any appeals, so why would they need more time to process this? I'm not expecting it to be successful at this stage?!

Redx

sometimes they do stick to the 35 day rule , or acknowledge it and delay the decision, sometimes they do cancel

sit on your hands and wait for a decision from PE

and yes they do have 6 years to try to enforce it by using the courts , although it is unlikely to take that long , possibly another few weeks should mean you get a decision (a cancellation , a name the driver , or a popla code)

Coupon-mad

sam4145 wrote: »

So I did get a letter yesterday from them, but all it said was they were still considering my appeal. I'm a bit confused - I didn't think they accepted any appeals, so why would they need more time to process this? I'm not expecting it to be successful at this stage?!

It will be merely because they have a backlog. They are buying time to send you a rejection letter, which they will.

sam4145

Ok, the rejection letter has finally come! Basically the appeal has been rejected because the car overstayed in the car park, so no bells and whistles about it, just the same reason given as for the original invoice. Also provided was the POPLA reference number. The appeal was about the poor signage yet they have not responded on this at all, even to say their signage is adequate.


So I know there is loads of information available on here, which I intend to use to appeal to POPLA but if anyone has any specific advice of things I should definitely do, or definitely avoid doing, I'd welcome that knowledge.


I also happened to be back at the same car park today and had a look at the signs - they are quite high up on the lamp posts around the park, probably about 2 feet above one's eye line and the Ts and Cs at the bottom are TINY, you would struggle to read these I think. Especially given the time I was there and overstayed, it was dark when I arrived and left. Yes, the signs are on lamp posts so would be illuminated by the light, however still hard to read the small print I would say. What is in bigger print is the 3 hour maximum stay and £70 charge rate. I would be interested to know if that alone is sufficient or if the small print should be easily readable? I imagine they would argue the small print doesn't materially change the 3 hour limit or £70 charge so isn't all that relevant?


Thanks in advance

KeithP

I hope you took lots of pictures of those signs to show PoPLA that they could not possibly form the basis of a contract.

sam4145

No, but I can go back for these if need be. Also, there was a separate letter contained within from PE about the data protection issue raised in the template appeal I used from here. They say they had reasonable cause to request my data from DVLA and in terms of my request to cease processing my data, they note that "the right of an individual to request that processing of their personal data ceases only applies if continuing to process causes unwarranted and substantial damage or distress. In this regard, based upon the information you provided, we do not consider that the continued processing of your personal data would cause unwarranted and substantial damage or distress."


That sounds quite dubious to me, but where do I stand with it?


It goes on to say the DPA does not define what is meant by unwarranted and substainal damage or distress, in most cases it would be financial loss or physical harm, a level of upset, emotional or mental pain that goes beyond annoyance" - so quite arguable I would say, and surely down to the individual to declare than for them to "decide" like this!


So that request has also been rejected...