Potential loophole in ParkingEye appeal process

stoem

Hey everyone,
thanks for all the help offered, I have read up on a lot of threads and just submitted an appeal to ParkingEye. I am the representative of a registered keeper who has received an unjustified parking charge notice.
During the process of submitting the appeal online I noticed that the last step of the online form holds a little gem in the form of a checkbox that you MUST select (indicating your agreement) in order to submit the appeal.

the checkbox states
'I confirm I have attached all supporting information available to me, and understand that I will be unable to provide any additional evidence at a later date, unless specifically requested by ParkingEye'

I believe my appeal to be robust but I felt it necessary to go back and add something along these lines to my appeal (sorry - it's long):

Your restriction of limiting evidence to 5 files appears to be vindictive and unnecessary. I reserve the right to provide more evidence if so required and I reject your limitation in the number of files that can be provided for which I see no legal or justifiable basis. More evidence is at hand but having to combine multiple pieces of evidence already to comply with your processes appears to be designed to limit my ability to defend myself. I therefore note that it is you who is limiting my ability to provide further evidence and by doing so are restricting my ability to fully defend this unjustified parking charge.
The fact that I only uploaded 5 files is due to your restriction, not due to my willingness to comply with said restriction.

With that in mind, my selection of the checkbox which states 'I confirm I have attached all supporting information available to me, and understand that I will be unable to provide any additional evidence at a later date, unless specifically requested by ParkingEye' cannot possibly be contorted into a confirmation of such a kind. You are forcing me to select this option in order for me to proceed with my appeal. I do NOT confirm that I have attached all supporting information available to me, I am merely confirming that you are limiting my evidence to 5 attachments and I have no other choice but to comply if I want to proceed with the appeal.
Any attempt to submit the form in question without selecting this option results in an error 'You must confirm all supporting information has been attached.'
That in itself appears to be more than questionable and I doubt would stand up to scrutiny in front of a judge. You cannot possibly ask appellants to submit ALL evidence available to them but at the same time restrict such evidence to 5 items.

Yours sincerely...


Not sure if it makes any difference but there could well be a legal loophole here if ParkingEye makes you agree to a restriction in the amount of evidence you can submit whilst at the same time insisting that you agree to that process.

BrownTrout

Sorry but that was a waste of typing means nothing

Umkomaas

I have read up on a lot of threads and just submitted an appeal to ParkingEye. I am the representative of a registered keeper who has received an unjustified parking charge notice.

In whose name have you submitted the appeal?

stoem

Umkomaas wrote: »

In whose name have you submitted the appeal?

The registered keeper got the notice, the registered keeper appealed.

stoem

BrownTrout wrote: »

Sorry but that was a waste of typing means nothing

It's your opinion. Others differ.

BrownTrout

stoem wrote: »

It's your opinion. Others differ.

No fact
what you have said will make no difference what so ever
There is no loophole

fisherjim

stoem wrote: »

It's your opinion. Others differ.

Good point but it won't make any difference to Parking Eye who are in it only for money, and will relish a punt in court where you can try out your theory, and the result will only be binding in that single case.


Of course you should try it out on the BPA first and see how they view it, but I suspect they will say they can't intervene with a members own parking appeals process which has been thoroughly (cough) audited.

stoem

BrownTrout wrote: »

No fact
what you have said will make no difference what so ever
There is no loophole

It isn't a fact, it's your opinion. Also note the use of the word 'potential'.
Thanks for your valued contribution.

stoem

fisherjim wrote: »

Good point but it won't make any difference to Parking Eye who are in it only for money, and will relish a punt in court where you can try out your theory, and the result will only be binding in that single case.

Of course you should try it out on the BPA first and see how they view it, but I suspect they will say they can't intervene with a members own parking appeals process which has been thoroughly (cough) audited.

Thank you.
The driver has comprehensive legal insurance in place (not motoring legal cover, general legal insurance) and would happily have this checked over by a legal professional if need be.

That said the main point of the appeal is a different and much stronger one and there's also the small matter of illegible and inadequate signage. Nevertheless it's quite satisfying to see these scammers insisting that appellants agree to clauses that are, in my opinion and experience, unenforceable in court.
It's not a stretch to say that the prescribed process limits an appellant's ability to defend the charge thoroughly.

BrownTrout

A DJ or DDJ would not even be interested in the slightest in the appeals process, its a red herring

pogofish

stoem wrote: »

It's your opinion. Others differ.

Nope - Parking Eye don’t care - they just want your money.

And you can’t have a loophole in any appeals process as minimally regulated as a PPC’s - in essence they make it-up as they go along.