Parking Eye ticket advice needed

sam4145

Ok so PE themselves drew my attention to this in their FAQ's part of the letter. The question was "Parking Eye must accept or reject my appeal within 35 days?" and their rather woolly answer is "The clause (22.8) to which this argument refers has been amended and is accessible to the public in the latest BPA Code of Practice. PE remains fully complaint with the CoP."


So I have looked at this, and the latest update is January 2018 and the clause 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.

Well they did not acknowledge it within 14 days unless the online submission page that the appeal had been submitted successfully counts?

They also did not seek any further information from me, sent me the 'holding letter' after about 30 days, and did not give a time frame or date when they would let me know the outcome. The outcome has arrived after 35 days and is dated 29th January, also more than 35 days after the date of the appeal (23rd December albeit at 23.55). 35 days from then would be the 27th Jan or even 28th if they argued my submission was basically made on the 24th December. It does not specify working days in the CoP so I am assuming it means calendar days.

Furthermore, the appeal was rejected for the simplest of reasons, one line - the maximum allowed time in the car park was exceeded. That does not cry out any sort of need for further investigation, more information or indeed more time needed. So I would think this is quite a strong point in my favour?

Coupon-mad

sam4145 wrote: »

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...

It's all standard guff.

I think it would be worthwhile to reply to PE when they say this, and spell out the level of ''unwarranted and substantial damage or distress'', i.e. talking about sleepless nights, family upset and arguments, your peace of mind and nerves being shredded, hours spent researching the scum parking industry, and finishing by quoting MPs, who singled out (you guessed it) PARKINGEYE as a worst offender:

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2018-02-02a.1149.0&p=11026

These are some of the comments made by the MPs concerning the unregulated parking industry.

''Cowboy companies, signage deliberately confusing to ensure a PCN is issued, rogue parking companies, bloodsuckers, absolute disgrace, rogue operators, unfair charges and notices, wilfully misleading, signage is a deliberate act to deceive or mislead, unreasonable, designed to trap innocent drivers, a curse, harassing, operating in a disgusting way, appeals service is no guarantee of a fair hearing, loathed, outrageous scam, dodgy practice, outrageous abuse, unscrupulous practices, the BPA is as much use as a multi-storey car park in the Gobi desert''.

One MP said: ''I want to point out several companies with which I have had particular problems, and against which I have had to advocate on behalf of constituents: Link Parking, New Generation Parking, UK Parking Control and ParkingEye.'' Another MP replied: ''I have had dozens of complaints about ParkingEye''.

Well they did not acknowledge it within 14 days unless the online submission page that the appeal had been submitted successfully counts?

It counts, of course. They acknowledged immediately. The time it took them to reply with a rejection letter/POPLA code means nothing at all, because no-one cares.

Sadly, their constant fob off replies to complaints tell us that the BPA don't care about the consumer.

sam4145

Thanks Coupon mad


May I ask why the fact the BPA says 35 days, they missed this for no good reason, does not count at all? It is a breach of the CoP surely? Why would BPA bother to put it in if it doesn't apply?

KeithP

sam4145 wrote: »

May I ask why the fact the BPA says 35 days, they missed this for no good reason, does not count at all? It is a breach of the CoP surely? Why would BPA bother to put it in if it doesn't apply?

You will need to complain to the BPA about this.

Before you do so, consider what you hope/expect to get out of it.

It is quite possible that the BPA will agree with you and tell you that they have spoken to the operator and it won't happen again.

Will that satisfy you?

I fear you energy is being diverted in the wrong direction.

sam4145

Well as I said I'll be looking on here for the relevant information to submit in the appeal to POPLA, but I thought it would be worth highlighting something like this just to show they're not following the procedure properly. Not for the appeal to be upheld solely for this reason but more as a "just another thing" on top of everything else. If you guys don't think its even worth mentioning then I won't though!

Coupon-mad

The BPA would say the PPC (their fee-paying beloved PE) is 'entitled to ask for further info' and/or to invite the keeper to dob in the driver...because they can. Never mind the breach of the CoP, the BPA will say there was 'no breach, so the case is closed'.

Some would say because the BPA can't risk upsetting their members, or they'll lose them.

sam4145

But isn't it worth highlighting to POPLA if not BPA? To show this company isn't playing by the rules?

Coupon-mad

Not really, you can't win at POPLA with that, so sadly IMHO it's pointless.

sam4145

Ok so lets get back to the main focus for POPLA then. Looking around the site, I think I need to focus on two things - the signage, and the fact they have not established who the driver was.

I obviously need to get some photos, but the signs are basically the same as this one:

http://www.burnham-on-sea.com/news/2017/asda-parking-uproar-26-1017.php

Only difference is its a 3 hour limit rather than 2. The 70 pound amount is the same and presented just like this one is in a black box, and the small print is the same too (hard to read).

Having read about the signage requirements, these signs do look better put together than the ones in the examples I found (https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/70517123#Comment_70517123) where lettering and the charge amount were smaller/less prominant.

I'd welcome expert opinion on whether the signs I am dealing with would likely fail the font size test or not? I will be highlight that the signs are above eye level on lamp posts and there isn't one displayed at the entrance to the car park (at least I don't think there is). Also that my appeal was mainly focussed on the signage and they have not responded to the points I raised (if that helps me at all?)

I will also use the info here http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=71287626&postcount=2342 about them not having identified the driver. I'll see if there is anything more recent as this was done in 2016 but I assume its still relevant?

The_Deep

What you can do to make life difficult for them is to read this

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

and then complain to your MP and in writing to your local Trading Standards Department, (not CAB who are useless).