Missed the appeal and given 14 days to pay up

Coupon-mad

That's a very good ParkingEye WS example.  The only thing I spotted was: I didn't use the word 'assumption' in my suggested wording.

Diaz13

These are the images of the signs from the car park - very clear to read aren't they!!!

Diaz13

So today I received a letter from PE asking me to settle at £70. How should I respond to this? 

Gr1pr

Given that its clear that there was a breach according to earlier information and that they are reverting it back to the typical modern charge of £70, you should give it serious consideration 

The answer might be different if DCB Legal were involved, but it seems that its the Parking Eye in house litigation team dealing with it and so you should take it seriously 

The main chances of you winning seem to be based on the signage, nothing else of note. ( Unless I am mistaken. ) and it seems to me that leaving the vehicle there was a regular occurrence, so not the first time for the driver who possibly knew, but forgot the vehicle was there 

But if you have a killer winning point, what is it. ?

I am minded to advise acceptance and close the case, because a loss in court could be 3 times the settlement offer 

Also bear in mind that they have incurred various costs so far, a DVLA database fee, postal charges, letters, court claim fee , plus employee time 

It stands to reason that they are correct with some invoices, they must have cases where the PCN was correctly issued 

But its your choice to make 

Diaz13

Really? I'm not sure what the breach of information is. My killer winning point was that I have a letter from retailer stating the charge should be rescinded. I thought this would have been enough? 

I thought I was supposed to fight this the whole way but sounds like your saying it's best I pay up now that I've received this letter? Otherwise go to court and risk paying £205 or can they charge me even more?

Gr1pr

The breach regarding the incident is the NTK PCN letter and the signs, clearly there was an overstay , you have confirmed that on here , so that is previous information, earlier on in your thread , its a breach of that parking sign rule 

I am not convinced that the retailer letter will win it for you, but that decision is for the judge to decide, not mine ( you are assuming that its enough , its a hope, not a given ). The retailer was hoping that the letter might get it cancelled or discontinued, hasn't happened so far, the retailer has no authority. That retailer ( the Range. ) are NOT the Landowner so not a party to the contract between the driver and the landowner agreement, or any managing agent agreement either, the Range are merely a tenant , like Lidl/ Farmfoods etc in the case below 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6563448/parkingeye-lidl-farmfoods-carpark#latest

You have the choice to fight the whole way if you want to, letting a judge decide in court, its not a "supposed" , its a choice that you have always had, its litigation, not a game , you are running your own defence as a Litigant in Person, litigation is always a risk for both sides , so sometimes there is a settlement out of court, not every case gets to court 

They may discontinue if you don't accept the recent offer 

Or they will take it all the way 

Should you go to court and lose they will ask for the sum on the claim form, plus extra costs, usually the latter are rejected, the judge would decide the figure, usually its less than the amount on the claim form, but no guarantees 

If you won in court you won't be paying anything, and may get costs 

You should be aware of all this already, at this juncture 

So as I said, the choice is yours to make, either you pay them off or you continue and hope that you prevail, possibly with a Discontinuance, but a typical loss in court is the amount they are claiming on the claim form, which is 3 times the recent settlement figure 

That is the gamble at this point, certainty or uncertainty 

Coupon-mad

I disagree.  I'd reject it. They'll possibly discontinue because the retailer doesn't support the charge.

Your defence is that you didn't breach a 'relevant obligation'.  You did everything expected of you; that their hit & miss communication (exemption system to extend allowed parking time) failed is their problem.

No conduct by the driver caused a breach of contract.  End of story. Costs please!

Gr1pr

Diaz13 said:

I parked at the Range, which have an agreement with my child's local school that we can park for drop off and pick up. I've had a lot on my plate and genuinely forgot my car was parked there and had walked back home. It was only at lunchtime I remembered I had driven up as it was raining that morning. So I had stayed there more than 2 hours the allowed time. 

Received a letter from PE and another both which I never got round to dealing with due to other serious problems going on in my life. Yesterday I received a 3rd letter saying appeal has passed. I have 14 days to pay £100. 

What should I do? Is it too late now? I don't want the stress of this hanging over me. Should I reply and say I never received the first 2 letters? We do tend to have a lot of post go missing due to 3 streets with similar addresses in my area. 

Please help! 

The story above is the detailed information that I read earlier, nothing to do with a retailer asking PE to cancel the PCN, doesn't even mention the Range 

The story then changed to a dubious chain of events after the school stated that the agreement was no longer in place anyway 

Then it became a letter from a retailer tenant asking for the claim to be cancelled , but not from the retail park management company or from the actual landowner 

Some fairy stories going on here, trying to make fiction suit the case, and then signed off as being true. !

The offer closes before the hearing fee is due, so yes it could be a game of chicken 

Coupon-mad

I disagree.

Gr1pr

No problem with disagreeing or disagreement, but the initial post is nothing like what the later defence is claiming, I dont think we should be assisting any untruths, I won't be a party to fabrications, I leave that to the dubious private parking companies, but the case will play out one way or the other, possibly with screenshots from this thread 

A slam dunk it isn't, ( a farce. ?  Possibly. Its hard to believe its the same case. !  )

14th January, troublemaker told the OP to be honest 

15th January is when the retailer became involved, not on the incident date or afterwards, but after the claim form arrived 

Let us see what happens by Xmas