Parking Eye PCN

gemsyjacks

Hi, I have read the newbies thread & I have completed a search of the old threads but I'm not sure if I'm searching for the right thing so if someone can direct me that would be wonderful.
Firstly, I am NOT the registered keeper. The registered keeper received a PCN from Parking Eye after I attended a fitness class on a site which hosts multiple business units and lost track of time, going 45 mins over the first free hour. The owner of the business I attended has no control over Parking Eye and an initial couple of emails to the site owners yielded no compassion at all. They simply stated I needed to take the matter up with PE.

This is where I'm getting confused. On the MSE site, it stated 3 options. Option 2 was to play hard ball & Option 3 was to follow the appeal process however, I only seem to be able to find references as to what to do in Option 3. I'm now getting tangled & confused & am worried I've left it too late as I thought I needed to leave it til day 26 to appeal but now I've realised that I don't as it was a postal PCN.

What's the thinking? Do I continue with the template I have for "hardball" from the MSE site, simply denying the demand for payment? Or follow the appeal process (which needs to be done today or tomorrow). I'm ballsy so I'll do either.
One other aspect, I have ADHD which means I do easily lose track of time & because of covid, the process for paying for parking has changed recently on that site so these would be my mitigating circumstances but I'm confused at how to use that in any letter without revealing that the registered keeper wasn't the driver. Do I just state "The driver" or do I use "we" or "I" as if it was the registered keeper?

Sorry if this is already covered elsewhere, I realise it must be frustrating policing threads like these.

KeithP

Forget that MSE stuff you have already read.

Instead turn your attention towards the first post of the NEWBIES thread.

The Registered Keeper should send the blue text one size fits all template easily found in that NEWBIES post. 

Send it unchanged - no additions or alterations needed.

It is important that it is sent in the name of the keeper - do not disclose the driver's identity.

Coupon-mad

On the MSE site, it stated 3 options. Option 2 was to play hard ball & Option 3 was to follow the appeal process however, I only seem to be able to find references as to what to do in Option 3. 

Never read that rubbish. It is out of date and the appeal they suggest you download is hopeless.   

You use OUR template from the NEWBIES thread and if the PCN (not the 'reminder) does NOT have the POFA paragraph on the back then a keeper who doesn't say who was driving, will win at POPLA as ling as you ignore P/Eye when they ask who was driving and put it 'on hold'.  Ignore that and wait for them to fold.

AND - get ANGRY and GET EVEN about this scam! 

Please now make a real difference because not enough people have:

A TASK FOR SEPTEMBER:

The Government is (this month only) consulting about a new statutory code of practice (CoP) and framework to rein in the rogue parking firms.  Read and comment on the draft CoP proposal and the enforcement framework consultation, and get everyone you know to do the same.

You will need to register to comment on the CoP and enter an occupation even if you are retired or a homemaker, but otherwise it is easy to navigate, and comment upon each section/subsection individually. You can save comments to edit later and or submit comments once you are happy with them.

https://standardsdevelopment.bsigroup.com/projects/2020-00193#/section

You do not need to register to comment on the enforcement framework which can be found here. It has a link on page 5 to make comments.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/913272/Code_Enforcement_Framework_consultation.pdf

At the very least, we say the parking charge level should be £50/£25 or higher level £70/£35, as per Council PCNs in E&W.  

And we say the added fake 'debt recovery' costs are just double counting the cost of letters and MUST GO.  Remove that layer and you remove the ‘drivers’ behind the race to court.

HOW TO DO THE SUBMISSIONS:

Responses into the PAS 232 and MHCLG framework documents are not completely straightforward:

On the MHCLG response, you have to answer the questions on a 1-5 scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree, and then put some commentary. No way to upload documents or alternatives.

 

On the PAS 232, you have to click on each clause and sub-clause to put your comments, and a suggested rewording of their draft.  You can see comments which other people have written! 

 

But, when you click ‘submit’, a message pops up to say your comments have been received, but that only applies to the particular clause you have just addressed.

 

You have to click ‘submit’ separately for each individual clause response.

 

Some people will be caught out by this but can revisit it and add further responses up to 12 October.

 

 

gemsyjacks

KeithP said:

Forget that MSE stuff you have already read.

Instead turn your attention towards the first post of the NEWBIES thread.

The Registered Keeper should send the blue text one size fits all template easily found in that NEWBIES post. 

Send it unchanged - no additions or alterations needed.

It is important that it is sent in the name of the keeper - do not disclose the driver's identity.

Hi, thank you so much for your advice, that's what I was stuck between, sending that or the template on the MSE page.
Just to clarify, I copy/paste that into the online appeals gubbins that PE provide? Or is there somewhere else it has to go first?

Coupon-mad

Just into their appeals page, choosing 'registered keeper'.

Then please tell the MHCLG and BSI what needs to change about the rogue industry and their extortionate fake fines... as per the above post.

gemsyjacks

Coupon-mad said:

On the MSE site, it stated 3 options. Option 2 was to play hard ball & Option 3 was to follow the appeal process however, I only seem to be able to find references as to what to do in Option 3. 

Never read that rubbish. It is out of date and the appeal they suggest you download is hopeless.   

You use OUR template from the NEWBIES thread and if the PCN (not the 'reminder) does NOT have the POFA paragraph on the back then a keeper who doesn't say who was driving, will win at POPLA as ling as you ignore P/Eye when they ask who was driving and put it 'on hold'.  Ignore that and wait for them to fold.

AND - get ANGRY and GET EVEN about this scam! 

Please now make a real difference because not enough people have:

A TASK FOR SEPTEMBER:

The Government is (this month only) consulting about a new statutory code of practice (CoP) and framework to rein in the rogue parking firms.  Read and comment on the draft CoP proposal and the enforcement framework consultation, and get everyone you know to do the same.

You will need to register to comment on the CoP and enter an occupation even if you are retired or a homemaker, but otherwise it is easy to navigate, and comment upon each section/subsection individually. You can save comments to edit later and or submit comments once you are happy with them.

https://standardsdevelopment.bsigroup.com/projects/2020-00193#/section

You do not need to register to comment on the enforcement framework which can be found here. It has a link on page 5 to make comments.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/913272/Code_Enforcement_Framework_consultation.pdf

At the very least, we say the parking charge level should be £50/£25 or higher level £70/£35, as per Council PCNs in E&W.  

And we say the added fake 'debt recovery' costs are just double counting the cost of letters and MUST GO.  Remove that layer and you remove the ‘drivers’ behind the race to court.

HOW TO DO THE SUBMISSIONS:

Responses into the PAS 232 and MHCLG framework documents are not completely straightforward:

On the MHCLG response, you have to answer the questions on a 1-5 scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree, and then put some commentary. No way to upload documents or alternatives.

 

On the PAS 232, you have to click on each clause and sub-clause to put your comments, and a suggested rewording of their draft.  You can see comments which other people have written! 

 

But, when you click ‘submit’, a message pops up to say your comments have been received, but that only applies to the particular clause you have just addressed.

 

You have to click ‘submit’ separately for each individual clause response.

 

Some people will be caught out by this but can revisit it and add further responses up to 12 October.

 

 

Thank you & noted. My PCN does have the POFA statement on the back though, does that change things?

Also, thanks for the links, I'll take a look now

Redx

All it means is they complied with POFA so the registered keeper has legal responsibility , meaning that not revealing who was driving doesn't really matter

So a keeper cannot win by saying they weren't driving , POFA makes them liable in law , if proven

gemsyjacks

Sorry everyone... me again.
We're just doing the appeal page & we're on a screen which asks us to select the reason for appeal from a dropdown list. I was a customer, the registered keeper was not. Should the registered keeper answer as though they were me or should they select "other"?

Le_Kirk

Just to note that it is the registered keeper that has to send the appeal, not anyone else.  You can do the research and help but it has to be in the name of the RK.

KeithP

Choose Other.

gemsyjacks

Now I'm confused again. The standard template states:
You must include a close up actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date as well as your images of the vehicle.
But they have already provided us with photographs of the vehicle so does this full para still stand?

If the allegation concerns a PDT machine, the data supplied in response to this appeal must include the record of payments made - showing partial VRNs - and an explanation of the reason for the PCN, because your Notice does not explain it.
It doesn't, do I need this para?