Parking Eye Ticket

shaftonred

Egbert_Nobacon wrote: »

Are you sure the PCN was for a 6 minute overstay ?

Could you have entered an incorrect VRN when paying by phone.

You have no need to use car parks in Clacton as there is loads of on street free parking available.
I have never had to pay in the last 20 years.

The PCN says arrival time of 11:27 and departure time of 14:41 so a total of 3hrs 14mins. Each picture is at the entrance to the car park and upon arrival i was waiting for an old woman to maneuver into a space before then having to join a queue to pay, by which time i got tired of waiting and paid by mobile. I have the receipt showing that I paid at 12:36 for 3hrs. All correct infoin there on terms of my licence plate number etc

shaftonred

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I can tell you 100% this is NOT about a 6min overstay. P/Eye never issue a PCN for that.

It is either:

- a wrong VRN recorded on the keypad, or

- an accumulation of the time at the start, to pay by phone (how long?) added to the six minutes at the end.

You can appeal on grace periods if the PCN timings show it is the latter. You can tell by comparing the PDT ticket, if you kept it, to the PCN arrival time.

If it's only 6 minutes over, all told, then the PCN is NOT for 'overstay' but is for a 'keying error' in the VRN and you need to just send the usual template appeal that already covers PDT machines & VRNs.

They're quoting 14 minutes over which is from my car being driven in to driving out. They do not account for me having to wait for an old dear to park up or getting in a queue of several people at the pay station...

The_Deep

They do not account for me having to wait for an old dear to park up or getting in a queue of several people at the pay station...

That is why the Grace Periods are there.

For future reference read this.

https://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2014/03/waiting-for-space-is-not-parking.html

You have not told us why the amount you had to pay was more than double that which it should have been . A properly conducted losing defence against a dim-witted judge should not have cost you more than £200. Did you upset HH?

This time, get your MP involved.

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 Second Reading in the Lords this month, and, with a fair wind, will l become Law later this year..

All five readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 7-8 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.

shaftonred

The_Deep wrote: »

They do not account for me having to wait for an old dear to park up or getting in a queue of several people at the pay station...

That is why the Grace Periods are there.

For future reference read this.

https://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2014/03/waiting-for-space-is-not-parking.html

You have not told us why the amount you had to pay was more than double that which it should have been . A properly conducted losing defence against a dim-witted judge should not have cost you more than £200. Did you upset HH?

This time, get your MP involved.

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 Second Reading in the Lords this month, and, with a fair wind, will l become Law later this year..

All five readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 7-8 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.

I'll appeal this as per the notice board and see where this gets me... I wont be pushing it as far as court though as I found the whole experiance very long winded and stressful, simply struggled to do all the research as well as be a father and do my work.


I certainly didnt upset her, i was smartly dressed, very polite and didnt interrupt... though BW Legals representative arrived stinking of smoke, about 5ft and 4ft wide with a scruffy shirt on and was allowed to interrupt almost at will whilst making comments.... i lost and had to pay £169.74 for debt and interest plus £268 for costs taking the total to £437... it was an expensive 33 seconds stopping on a road!!

Coupon-mad

This is winnable at POPLA stage, going by grace periods - as long as you explain in detail (POPLA like such detail, when it comes to grace periods) what you were doing to take those minutes before and after paid-for time.

You paid within 9 minutes (assuming the PDT machine has the same time as the entry ANPR camera, which it doesn't as they are entirely separate systems). As long as you explain why that took 9 minutes, then POPLA might agree. No admitting fault or saying you didn't rush, sat in the car, or took your time. Talk about the other external factors.

First, if you haven't already, send the template to P/Eye as per the NEWBIES thread.

KeithP

shaftonred wrote: »

... i lost and had to pay £169.74 for debt and interest plus £268 for costs taking the total to £437... it was an expensive 33 seconds stopping on a road!!

£268 costs??

Must've been for your unreasonable behaviour.

Costs of that magnitude are never awarded in a Small Claim Court otherwise.

shaftonred

KeithP wrote: »

£268 costs??

Must've been for your unreasonable behaviour.

Costs of that magnitude are never awarded in a Small Claim Court otherwise.

Unreasonable behaviour? As already mentioned I couldn't have been more polite, prepared and well presented so this isn't the case for sure.... that said, and embarrasingly, having looked back through the documents the information from BW Legal in terms of estimated charges and amount on the small claims "Claim Form" estimated approx £244... so its now got me wondering what the other charges relate to.


The only thing I can think of is that they paid another company to represent them at court... either way I will follow up with the court/BW Legal for a breakdown as immediately afterwards I was truely fed up of it all and had agreed the payment almost straight away without much thought.

nosferatu1001

CPR27.14 states youre not liable for their reps costs
Same as you cant claikm your costs, other than loss of lave or pay, if youd won

CPR27.14(2)(g) is the only place these extra costs cna be awarded, and then only for you being deemed "unreasonable"

shaftonred

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

CPR27.14 states youre not liable for their reps costs
Same as you cant claikm your costs, other than loss of lave or pay, if youd won

CPR27.14(2)(g) is the only place these extra costs cna be awarded, and then only for you being deemed "unreasonable"

Thanks for clarification, I will follow this up as I was very respectful and at no point was unreasonable.

shaftonred

I have followed up as per the newbies thread and they have since come back unsurprisingly and rejected this. I am going to go to the next stage in the process with this but part of their response they made an error by confirming that no parking was purchased on the date of the parking event, despite me having proof of this.... therefore the question I have is does this mistake by them make things a whole lot more positive on my side?