Southampton Leisure World Parking Eye Unfair PCN

Trainerman

cici1988 said:

new details have emerged from parking eye today, they have mentioned "please note that a term of contract is that motorists enter their full and correct vehicle registration into the terminal'. They are saying I have entered a 'dissimilar registration'. This is my breach of contract. I get it, but still very unfair? Should I keep going? 

Then they should have applied the BPA Code which covers 'keying errors' ( The new Government Code does too). Even if they thought they had a case, they should have offered a lower figure for a keying error (£20, I think). The incoming Government code says that a minor error should lead to total cancellation.

So yes, I would keep going. They will find this very hard to win. I suspect that a strong enough defence would make them pull out

cici1988

Trainerman said:

cici1988 said:

new details have emerged from parking eye today, they have mentioned "please note that a term of contract is that motorists enter their full and correct vehicle registration into the terminal'. They are saying I have entered a 'dissimilar registration'. This is my breach of contract. I get it, but still very unfair? Should I keep going? 

Then they should have applied the BPA Code which covers 'keying errors' ( The new Government Code does too). Even if they thought they had a case, they should have offered a lower figure for a keying error (£20, I think). The incoming Government code says that a minor error should lead to total cancellation.

So yes, I would keep going. They will find this very hard to win. I suspect that a strong enough defence would make them pull out

Thanks so much!

Trainerman

cici1988 said:

Trainerman said:

cici1988 said:

new details have emerged from parking eye today, they have mentioned "please note that a term of contract is that motorists enter their full and correct vehicle registration into the terminal'. They are saying I have entered a 'dissimilar registration'. This is my breach of contract. I get it, but still very unfair? Should I keep going? 

Then they should have applied the BPA Code which covers 'keying errors' ( The new Government Code does too). Even if they thought they had a case, they should have offered a lower figure for a keying error (£20, I think). The incoming Government code says that a minor error should lead to total cancellation.

So yes, I would keep going. They will find this very hard to win. I suspect that a strong enough defence would make them pull out

Thanks so much!

You are very welcome. If you want to 'swot up' look at  the new Government Private Parking code of practice, Annex F,  3(a)

cici1988

will take a look now. Thanks again. I have briefly typed up a quick response, which I will amend once I have read the Gov private parking code as you have just mentioned. 

"Please can you clarify if this was a major keying error or a minor keying error?

Under the BPA Code of practice and Government Private Parking Code of Practice I  believe this should have been informed, it is your duty as the car parking operator to ensure that inadvertent errors do not lead to unjustified charges. 

I have acknowledged receipt of the county court claim and have my defence ready, the details as requested in my previous email should be with me no later than 22.03.22, so you can be assured I am prepared to have this taken further."

or should I just end correspondence with P.E now and leave the rest to my defence? 

Trainerman

See what the others think, but if you are at Defence stage, contacting Parking Eye seems counter-productive. However, others are better placed than I to advise on that.

IF I were contacting them, I would not offer them the manoeuvring room of 'major/minor'. The Govt code does not differentiate.

cici1988

IF I were contacting them, I would not offer them the manoeuvring room of 'major/minor'. The Govt code does not differentiate.

Good point! 

cici1988

Coupon-mad said:

ParkingEye defences are in the NEWBIES thread.

thanks so much I have found a template for PE defence, panic has set in after reading but I have just made a start.

no longer do I have the physical pcn letter to refer myself to in order to come to terms with the rest of the template. Still awaiting SAR from PE, once I have this ill hopefully be a little more confident! 

From the most recent email it seems their only justification is the fact that I hadn't submitted an appeal in the first instance. 

Coupon-mad

It was down to them to carry out manual checks immediately, to avoid issuing PCNs at all where a payment was made and the VRM recorded by the keypad was reasonably able to be attributed to that car.   A typo should not result in a PCN at all.

There is a paragraph you can add to your defence, that is in the template defence for NON ParkingEye cases. The end bit, about lack of fair ADR.

Use that section to explain why you should not be adversely judged for not engaging with the parking industry's self-serving, non-independent and effectively a 'consumer failure' of competing and 'blink and you miss it' narrow scope Appeals Services that are now being replaced by Government.

D_P_Dance

Of course you should, many judges regard these claims as a waste of court time, read this,

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/De+Minimis

Have you complained to your MP?

cici1988

D_P_Dance said:

Of course you should, many judges regard these claims as a waste of court time, read this,

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/De+Minimis

Have you complained to your MP?

I haven't, if im honest im struggling to just get the defence written up.