ParkingEye Letter Before Claim & BWLegal Letter Of Claim

milo_2020

Redx said:

milo_2020 said:

Redx said:

So now you tell us !!!😤😤😤

If you have posted 2 threads previously , then you should have added to each one separately and not started a new thread making us phish for information as if it's like getting blood from a stone

For me there are no suggestions , it is for you or her to decide what to do , as adults

Our role is to provide the OP with facts , then that OP decides what to do

Aloso , because we do not know the full facts in each case , nobody can determine what to do

We have not see signs , or paperwork like NTK , or landowner authority contracts etc , so too many unknowns , especially the last item

You are expecting far too much from too little , sorry to say

I have no axe to grind , but you should let this thread die and update the other two , for clarity and continuity

Sorry, I communication is not right my side here, I had not made a thread for either until now, this is the first thread. I am just being overly cautious as I see a lot of people post things and people reply on here saying I would delete that as it provides too much info, how much can I share without the risk of them identifying me from here and it worsening the case?

Apologies

How can we know the 2 cases without the facts ?

I understand the caution but it's still like pulling hens teeth !!

You should have posted each case on a separate thread at the time !!

Previously I have never needed to actually post a thread as I always have been successful in my own situations, this will mainly be because I have appealed and replied punctually and they never proceeded in the end... FWIW, same supermarket... 

I am having difficulty understanding here what I should be doing, I understand it is in a very bad situation and made worse by lack of attention, but what is your advise? Should I reply to PE using their forms sent in the LBCCC?

beamerguy

You must get to grips with this.   You do not complete the forms so you do not send blank forms back.  This is a pre action protocol (PAP) letter and would mainly apply to those who maybe owe thousands but NOT from an invoice from PE which must be proven in court

How do you know the pictures are from CCTV, data protection comes into play here

Redx

milo_2020 said:

Redx said:

It won't cost Parking Eye money as such.  , They issue in house and do their own litigation , so are already paid

The court fees and legal costs are £75 , added to their £100 claim , making the amount you pay within a month after losing

Okay... so are you advising I just pay it now as its more than likely that we will loose because her head was buried in the sand on this one!! I just checked the SAR request response these are key points which will hopefully provide the blood from the stone:

• First letter was Parking Charge Notice, no notice to keeper
• Date of event: 27th July 2020, Date issued 30th July 2020
• Appeal sent via website, 4th August 2020
• Appeal rejected via email 18th August 2020 with POPLA details, this was not actioned 'head in sand' it seems.
• LBCCC 17th November 2020 

At no time have said to pay it , or not pay it , I will not be drawn on that aspect , not my decision

I will say that as they appear to have complied with POFA on timescales , they are likely to issue a court case 

The Popla appeal would have revealed signage and landowner authority and be won or lost on one of those with £100 at stake

It wasn't done so you have neither , they won't reveal them until near the hearing date !!

The court case will be won or lost on the same issues , but with more money at stake than Popla , typically £175 to £180

The initial NTK PCN could have been paid off at £60 at the time

My advice is

Negotiate a settlement with the litigation team at Parking Eye

milo_2020

beamerguy said:

You must get to grips with this.   You do not complete the forms so you do not send blank forms back.  This is a pre action protocol (PAP) letter and would mainly apply to those who maybe owe thousands but NOT from an invoice from PE which must be proven in court

How do you know the pictures are from CCTV, data protection comes into play here

Would you like to see them? Lol, one wasn't even her car, everyone was identifiable in the images, I know its CCTV because NPE attached the images which are clearly CCTV and state a time and date along with "LOCATION PTZ1" and various other camera names.
They also attached an image taken on the 26/1/2016.... when I questioned it they said it was a mistake, and also replied with a bunch of images circling the passenger in the queue along with this:

"Please find attached further images identifying the passenger of the vehicle. As you can see the passenger is wearing black and white shoes and off black coat, which can be noticed in the photos attached. Also, I’d like to draw to your attention, the queue, there is person in a grey T-Shirt standing on the side is still in the queue when the passenger comes back, and therefore they couldn’t have managed to enter the store before coming back to the vehicle."

milo_2020

Redx said:

My advice is

Negotiate a settlement with the litigation team at Parking Eye

Sounds like good advise, when the letter come through I assumed I could follow the same processes I had previously any other time, although like I said I had complete control and would have gone down POPLA route and been much more prompt... I think I will follow that advise and potentially giving some additional explanation to the circumstances of why it wasn't properly responded to maybe? Do you think that would help?

EDIT: How do I even start the negotiation? Is this in a thread I've missed?

milo_2020

During the appeal process they (PE) sent me photos of the signs on site, along with a clear view of the signs from across the road, worth posting what they sent me? It obviously will disclose the location of the store/car park..

Redx

This forum has an email link by coupon mad to their litigation enforcement team at Parking Eye , a direct email , search for it

There is nothing new on here , it's a rare occurrence , meaning yes it's on one or more threads you have missed 😆👍

Where do you think I got it from ! ? 

I have never , ever had a private parking charge , so everything I know I have read on here

KeithP

milo_2020 said:

During the appeal process they (PE) sent me photos of the signs on site, along with a clear view of the signs from across the road, worth posting what they sent me? It obviously will disclose the location of the store/car park..

We already know the location.
You told us earlier - Clone Road, Clacton.

milo_2020

KeithP said:

milo_2020 said:

During the appeal process they (PE) sent me photos of the signs on site, along with a clear view of the signs from across the road, worth posting what they sent me? It obviously will disclose the location of the store/car park..

We already know the location.
You told us earlier - Clone Road, Clacton.

Sorry, I have muddled PE and NPE there, I meant NPE, ParkingEye is Clone Road, Clacton, the other is ... well shall I post the signs they sent me to reference? I presume I shouldn't post the CCTV they sent me? Some of them are quite clear and have no effort in blurring out other members of the public, not sure if that's something they should be doing?

beamerguy

milo_2020 said:

beamerguy said:

You must get to grips with this.   You do not complete the forms so you do not send blank forms back.  This is a pre action protocol (PAP) letter and would mainly apply to those who maybe owe thousands but NOT from an invoice from PE which must be proven in court

How do you know the pictures are from CCTV, data protection comes into play here

Would you like to see them? Lol, one wasn't even her car, everyone was identifiable in the images, I know its CCTV because NPE attached the images which are clearly CCTV and state a time and date along with "LOCATION PTZ1" and various other camera names.
They also attached an image taken on the 26/1/2016.... when I questioned it they said it was a mistake, and also replied with a bunch of images circling the passenger in the queue along with this:

"Please find attached further images identifying the passenger of the vehicle. As you can see the passenger is wearing black and white shoes and off black coat, which can be noticed in the photos attached. Also, I’d like to draw to your attention, the queue, there is person in a grey T-Shirt standing on the side is still in the queue when the passenger comes back, and therefore they couldn’t have managed to enter the store before coming back to the vehicle."

CCTV as you have said is for security.  Are you saying that NPE own the CCTV ?