PCN Parking Eye

lostinleicester

Hey have read through FAQ notes and threads it would seem the notice is going to be difficult to counter. Hoping it can still be fought on mitigating circumstances.

Date of event: 22/3/2018
Date issues:28/3/2018
Amount £100
Discounted £60 within 14 days

Freemans Park Leicester

Time of stay 1 1/4 hours (at night)

They have provided pictures but you cannot see the driver in them as it is dark.

In their invoice it states:

"The signage, which is clearly displayed at the entrance to and throughout the car park, states that this is private land and that the car par is managed by ParkingEyeLTD. In addition to signage states that, as a paid parking/ patron only / maximum stay car park, a Parking Charge is applicable if the motorist fails to make the appropriate tariff payment, tails to enter their full, correct vehicle registration into the terminal in reception, or if the vehicle remains within the car park for longer than 0 hours 0 minutes max stay time.The signage also contains further terms and conditions associated with this car park by which those who par in the car park agree to be bound.

By either not purchasing a valid pay and display ticket, by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted, or by not entering your registration details via the terminal, in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the signage, the Parking Charge is now payable to ParkingEye LTD (as the Creditor)."

They set out the protection of freedoms act and appeals procedure.

Another loophole is that they don't provide adequate time to park, look at and make an informed decision about the contract on the sign before entering into the contract. 0 hours 0 minutes gives the driver no time to make an informed decision about this contract does it not?

Quentin

If you have read the newbies FAQ thread you should know that mitigating circumstances never win!

And never to reveal who was driving.

You need to edit your post to remove details of who was driving

The ppcs monitor this forum and can use your posts against you

Follow the advice in the FAQ on how to appeal

The_Deep

In my opinion some of the signs PE use, especially those in Asda car parks, fall far short of being capable of forming contracts The one in my local Asda contains lines and lines of very small unpunctuated print. This may well be acceptable if you are commissioning a nuclear power station, but for free parking in a supermarket, surely it is unrealistic to expect people to read and absorb all this. IMO it is a scam.

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

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

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.

lostinleicester

Quentin wrote: »

If you have read the newbies FAQ thread you should know that mitigating circumstances never win!

And never to reveal who was driving.

You need to edit your post to remove details of who was driving

The ppcs monitor this forum and can use your posts against you

Follow the advice in the FAQ on how to appeal

There is no mention of who was driving or who is writing this post unless something has been missed that you could point me toward? I have looked at the FAQ's and have not found the info I need, that's why I posted. The FAQ's describe inability to name driver but then they put the freedom act in there, which was included in other faq's. Can you maybe link to info you're specifically referring to that directly refers to this post please?

Quentin

Your OP does give details of who was driving/ate at the restaurant etc.

The FAQ advises not to think your circs are different.

There is a template appeal to send off to pe designed to get you a popla code.

All straightforward

Redx

mitigation does not work when appealing and the POPLA website has warned against it for years

the BPA CoP covers grace periods

and if PE followed POFA2012 then they have a case against the keeper and dont care who was driving

any appeal may be won on the usual POPLA appeal points

NO CONTRACT
POOR AND INADEQUATE SIGNAGE
NOT THE SAME AS BEAVIS
ANY BPA CoP FAILURES
ANY POFA 2012 FAILURES

lostinleicester

Redx wrote: »

mitigation does not work when appealing and the POPLA website has warned against it for years

the BPA CoP covers grace periods

and if PE followed POFA2012 then they have a case against the keeper and dont care who was driving

any appeal may be won on the usual POPLA appeal points

NO CONTRACT
POOR AND INADEQUATE SIGNAGE
NOT THE SAME AS BEAVIS
ANY BPA CoP FAILURES
ANY POFA 2012 FAILURES

Just spoke to Nandos and they said there are tablets to register on in the store that I wasn't alerted to when I was in there. She said to come in and print off a receipt and I will be able to get it cancelled if I send the receipt to ParkingEye. Phew! Thanks for the info

Coupon-mad

Everyone should always complain first to the retailer and it never ceases to amaze me that we have to suggest it!

Well done, now also get this from PE, by putting in an appeal online (as registered keeper, NOT DRIVER of course!) that says:

'Nandos have cancelled this PCN because the driver was a genuine patron and they failed to draw to the driver's attention, the supposed tablet/keypad, so please email me to confirm that ParkingEye can cancelled this charge.'