ParkingEye charge notices - Advice needed!

Freya1

Hi I have read the newbie stickies but I'm still v confused, so if anyone is able to shed some light please do!!
I received a couple of parking charges recently from ParkingEye for a car for which I am the registered keeper. Only one of these refers to POFA 2012 however they were both sent within the required 14 day time frame so I am unsure if this helps my case. Both relate to a private car park (Freemans, Leics). As I understand it the driver was unfamiliar with the car park layout, and in the dark did not appreciate that they were not parking in the adjacent Morrisons car park, which allows up to 3 hours free parking for customers. There is only a footpath de-marking the two car parks, the car was parked directly behind Morrisons, and the only sign the driver saw was one confirming the 3 hour window for the store. They have receipts from Morrisons for at least one of the occasions. Returning to the car park in the light the driver has confirmed that there are separate entrances and exits to each car park, but these and the relevant signage were not apparent to them in the dark & rain.
Is there any point in me contesting the charges?? Many thanks for any advice!

Redx

there are many legal reasons why you can contest the charges, no landowner contract, poor and inadequate signage , POFA2012 failures , BPOA CoP errors etc

without seeing all the evidence for these we cannot determine the pros and cons, neither can you because you dont have it all (and probably never will)

if one has no POFA2012 paragraph on it then that is a failure under POFA2012 and the strongest point

the other (or both of them) - we would haave to see the signage and if it was at night then the lighting also plays a part


if this isnt a Morrissons car park then that is irrelevant , but a landowner complaint may extract cancellations


the correct KEEPER appeal is the blue text appeal you saw in post #1, on their website


no blabbing about who may have been driving

Freya1

Many thanks Redx, and I won't be mentioning the driver's details. Please excuse my ignorance though, but does the absence of a POFA2012 paragraph alone likely give me grounds to appeal that particular charge notice? Clearly I need to gather more details re the signage too, but in case further details don't help my case I'd like to contest at least one if these if getting it cancelled is a realistic outcome. Thanks again!

Redx

if they failed POFA2012 timescale or wording (or both) then the KEEPER isnt liable, only the driver is, so as they have no idea who that was (it could have been me , as the STRUTS once sang)

check for that POFA2012 on the back of the NTK, one may have it , or both , the other may not

to comply with POFA2012, it must arrive by day 15 AND have the pofa2012 warning as well (not one or the other , but both)

if they both arrived by day 15 , then they should BOTH have the warning paragraph and usually do

Freya1

Great thanks Redx, both were within 15 days but one is definitely missing any mention of POFA2012, so I can appeal that one at least!
Am now playing the Struts at full belt in appreciation, thank you!

The_Deep

invive yoyr MP.

It is the will of Parliament that these scammers be put out of business. Hopefully that will take place in the near future. The Bill has passed through the HOC without hitch, and goes to the Lords soon. In the meantime involve your MP, the poor dears are buckling under the weight of complaints about these scammers. Read this one which I wrote earlier

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers.

Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Third Reading in late November, and, with a fair wind, will become Law next year.

All three readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 6-7 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.
k