Parkingeye: Lawston St (Upper) Preston

jonny_p

[FONT=&quot]Hi all

I received a standard letter from parkingeye about one of my registered cars, The 'reminder' letter said it was for "not purchasing the appropriate time" or "remaining at the carpark for longer than permitted".

It was not a 'golden ticket' so I sent the usual reply as the registered keeper. It went quiet for a while but they got back to me a couple of weeks ago with an emailed letter telling me that the appeal had been put on hold for another month. The email said:

"> You have stated that you were not the driver of the vehicle at the date and time of the breach of the terms and conditions of the car park, but you have not indicated who was.
You have already been notified that under section 9(2)(b) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 that the driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay this parking charge in full. As we do not know the driver’s name or current postal address, if you were not the driver at the time, you should tell us the full name and the current postal address of the driver.

Is this fairly standard now for parkingeye? Do I just sit this out and wait for them to formally reject my appeal as the registered keeper and send a POPLA code? I thought that there were rules about not sending out correspondence by electronic means?

They still have not explained what actually happened on the day in question - was a ticket not purchased or did the driver go over the time purchased? In any event, the signage is IMO totally inadequate.

The carpark is accessed by a single lane ramp that is shared by cars traveling up and down. Pedestrians are also given a section of the ramp to walk up/down but need to cross the flow of traffic to access it.

As a driver turns onto the ramp, there is a single 'compliant' sign attached to the nearside wall of the ramp. This sign is at ground level on the opposite side of the car to the driver who would have little chance to see it never mind read it. This can be seen on the google maps streetview and nothing has changed since it was recorded.



As you drive up the ramp there is an elevated sign on the CCTV pole so about 7/8 feet up. This is pointing down the ramp although not angled downwards. I guess parkingeye want the driver to try read this rather than look out for oncoming cars and/or pedestrians on the single lane. Given that the sign has no back to it other than a bright blue sky, I imagine that it would be difficult to read even in the absence of hazards like moving cars.

Once you get into the carpark there are no other obvious signs although the letter told me that signage is clear. Apparently clear signage means to scatter some more 'compliant' signs at ground level on a low wall. Unfortunately when a car parks in a bay in front of these signs, there is no longer anything visible to read.

I will post some pictures later but that is probably best left until I get a POPLA code?

So, back to my first question. Should I ignore the letter and wait for being rejected?

thanks[/FONT]

Redx

Yes, wait for a popla code unless you wish to nominate who was driving, which we rarely recommend

Umkomaas

I received a standard letter from parkingeye about one of my registered cars, The 'reminder' letter said it was for "not purchasing the appropriate time" or "remaining at the carpark for longer than permitted".

It was not a 'golden ticket'

Are you referring to your very first letter - Notice to Keeper (NtK) - when you say it was not a 'Golden Ticket', or to the reminder letter? Only the NtK is relevant to whether it is/is not a GT.

It's unusual for PE to be chasing driver details (although not unknown) when they have already met PoFA requirements to extract the charge from the keeper. A wholly unnecessary exercise for them. £100 from the keeper is just as good as £100 from the driver.

Just to double check before putting PoFA non-compliance to bed:

From the NtK (not reminder letter)

1. Date of parking incident?

2. Date of Issue shown on the NtK?

3. Does the reverse page of your NtK contain a paragraph about the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which commences 'You are notified under paragraph 9(2)(b) of Schedule 4 ..... '. And a further paragraph which commences 'You are warned that if, after 29 days from the date given ....'?

The_Deep

Read more about PE's appalling signage here

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5972164/parking-eye-signs-oxford-road-reading

and enlist the support of your MP as they are obviously trying to scam you.

Nine out of ten of these so called breaches of contract are scams

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, and persistent offenders denied access. Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers.

Until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

jonny_p

Thanks for the reply.



Date of Event: 16/05/19
Date Issued: 23/05/19 (original parking charge notice)
PofA: Yes, the PCN/NtK does contain the PofA wording which is what I was actually reading when I wrote 'reminder' for some reason. The reminder doesn't have the wording but, like you say, that is not important.


So, it looks like they have adhered to the requirements. Just wait for a POPLA code and appeal.


cheers

Umkomaas wrote: »

Are you referring to your very first letter - Notice to Keeper (NtK) - when you say it was not a 'Golden Ticket', or to the reminder letter? Only the NtK is relevant to whether it is/is not a GT.

It's unusual for PE to be chasing driver details (although not unknown) when they have already met PoFA requirements to extract the charge from the keeper. A wholly unnecessary exercise for them. £100 from the keeper is just as good as £100 from the driver.

Just to double check before putting PoFA non-compliance to bed:

From the NtK (not reminder letter)

1. Date of parking incident?

2. Date of Issue shown on the NtK?

3. Does the reverse page of your NtK contain a paragraph about the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which commences 'You are notified under paragraph 9(2)(b) of Schedule 4 ..... '. And a further paragraph which commences 'You are warned that if, after 29 days from the date given ....'?

Umkomaas

jonny_p wrote: »

Thanks for the reply.



Date of Event: 16/05/19
Date Issued: 23/05/19 (original parking charge notice)
PofA: Yes, the PCN/NtK does contain the PofA wording which is what I was actually reading when I wrote 'reminder' for some reason. The reminder doesn't have the wording but, like you say, that is not important.


So, it looks like they have adhered to the requirements. Just wait for a POPLA code and appeal.


cheers

Sorry to be a bit pedantic about this, but would you check word for word (important) that your NtK's second page has exactly the PoFA warning shown on this NtK please. There must be a reason for PE badgering for driver's details.

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/uploads/monthly_2018_07/parkingeye002blank.jpg.ee873992b32737b11b147f0a2341769c.jpg

Coupon-mad

As a driver turns onto the ramp, there is a single 'compliant' sign attached to the nearside wall of the ramp. This sign is at ground level on the opposite side of the car to the driver who would have little chance to see it never mind read it. This can be seen on the google maps streetview and nothing has changed since it was recorded.

Show us that picture or GSV link? Which location?

Why did the driver go into a private car park and not seek out signs to pay? Seems odd to me, to drive into a private car park at all (I wouldn't, except at Supermarkets/Hotels I am using) and drive up a ramp, with what sounds like a definite 'entrance' making it clear the land is separate from the street, then not read any signs or look to pay.

I am on your side, never ParkingEye's, but I'm just wondering how this comes about?

tboo

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.7620757,-2.7006293,3a,75y,253.91h,113.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skffQJKPryhxnJpLROQ8Tbw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192


for some reason I can't link the exact spot - end of Saul Street Preston

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.7620757,-2.7006293,3a,75y,285.5h,64.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skffQJKPryhxnJpLROQ8Tbw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192


https://www.blogpreston.co.uk/2016/03/lawson-street-car-park-to-bring-in-number-plate-cameras/

jonny_p

hxxps://tiny url.com/lawsonstreet


Is there an easier way of getting urls to work?

Coupon-mad

Why did the driver go into a private car park and not seek out signs to pay? Seems odd to me, to drive into a private car park at all (I wouldn't, except at Supermarkets/Hotels I am using) and drive up a ramp, with what sounds like a definite 'entrance' making it clear the land is separate from the street, then not read any signs or look to pay.

I am on your side, never ParkingEye's, but I'm just wondering how this comes about?

Is that entrance sign lit? I can see the machines are not.

jonny_p

Yes, it is exactly the same wording as the example.

Umkomaas wrote: »

Sorry to be a bit pedantic about this, but would you check word for word (important) that your NtK's second page has exactly the PoFA warning shown on this NtK please. There must be a reason for PE badgering for driver's details.

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/uploads/monthly_2018_07/parkingeye002blank.jpg.ee873992b32737b11b147f0a2341769c.jpg