PCN Parkingeye LIDL PZ - Issued 13/05/2024

murphyb

Hi everyone

Very grateful to have found such an extensive source of info on here for this kind of thing. Ive never contested one of these before, so kind of out of my comfort zone. Without the guidance to do otherwise, in the past ive perceived paying up as being the least stress option and have swallowed frustration and probably shame with it.
Im very glad to hear the breadth of success that people have had in confronting and appealing these charges and with that I find im a lot more willing to give it a shot, so




I think ive had a pretty good look into the suggested steps. 

Since the neighbour dropped the post by with this letter a couple of days ago, Ive not been back to the store to complain, as im not entirely clear what stance to take. Ive wanted to firstly touch base here. 

Ive found the parkingeye appeals webpage and have the following text saved...

"I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. Since your PCN is a vague template, I require an explanation of the allegation and your evidence. 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.

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.

If the allegation involves an alleged overstay of minutes, your evidence must include the actual grace period agreed by the landowner."

and plan to include evidence of a transaction in store - a photo of starling bank app statement, attached below


"as 'they' were a genuine customer/patient"

I use the store fairly regularly, less so in the 5 years since ive lived outside of town but have ever since it opened and all close family continue to also.

I was inside the shop this time for around 30 mins and spent around £40. First time this month. I didnt clock a sign, though no doubt there is one... After returning to the van, time there didnt in the slightest occur to me and I ended up taking a look into the sliding door which has been playing up lately, making getting into the van difficult.

As suggested, this is a new thread to doc what happens.

Am I missing anything??

Far as I see it, the next step is to go a head with the online parkingeye process right?

Thanks

murphyb

Apologies, realise ive not edited out the QR code. Trying to edit by clicking the 3 dots but just get an empty narrow rectangular drop down box. You can pay it if you want, just let me know !

Coupon-mad

"as 'they' were a genuine customer/patient"

Patron!


Yes do that appeal.  With the proof of payment and if they are elderly or have a blue badge state that the motorist needed more time.

Only do the appeal in their name, not yours.

Gr1pr

The PCN shows that the vehicle was onsite for 104 minutes but the limit is 90 minutes, so a 14 minutes overstay, not the 30 minutes you stated above ( its typically 90 minutes at Lidl or Aldi ,vso what they mentioned . )

But follow the above advice 

Ps , newbies can't edit their posts until it says forumite 

murphyb

Coupon-mad said:

"as 'they' were a genuine customer/patient"

Patron!


Yes do that appeal.  With the proof of payment and if they are elderly or have a blue badge state that the motorist needed more time.

Only do the appeal in their name, not yours.

Thank you for your reply CM. Patron, got it!

I am the culprit but I thought I read somewhere that the idea was not to disclose self as the driver?

I don't have a blue badge but I do have a valid disabled railcard - more a mental health aid, opposed to physical. I recall seeing a PCN case where an individual was neurodivergent. I myself am awaiting diagnosis. Not sure if this is worth mentioning/banging a drum about though. 

Gr1pr, thanks for the edit tip off. I mentioned i was in the shop for 30, didnt mention how long i over stayed but as you said, the letter says 14

Gr1pr

If the NTK PCN letter is compliant with the law named POFA, then pointless hiding the identity of the driver, so better to play the genuine customer needing more time under the Equality Act 2010 card to account for the extra time, without volunteering the reason you disclosed on here 

So genuine shopper requiring Extra time under the reasonable adjustments argument 

murphyb

Thanks v much Gr1pr.

So Im hearing offer no reasoning but state genuine shopper, provide evidence of transaction and suggest a need for extra time, highlighting the equality act 2010 as ref to reason. Think thats all to get the ball rolling? 

Umkomaas

murphyb said:

Thanks v much Gr1pr.

So Im hearing offer no reasoning but state genuine shopper, provide evidence of transaction and suggest a need for extra time, highlighting the equality act 2010 as ref to reason. Think thats all to get the ball rolling? 

Should do the trick. PE seem reluctant to upset Lidl's genuine customer base by needlessly and menacingly pursuing when proof of patronage is evidenced. ~£30 seems to be the minimum spend threshold. 

murphyb

Umkomaas said:

murphyb said:

Thanks v much Gr1pr.

So Im hearing offer no reasoning but state genuine shopper, provide evidence of transaction and suggest a need for extra time, highlighting the equality act 2010 as ref to reason. Think thats all to get the ball rolling? 

Should do the trick. PE seem reluctant to upset Lidl's genuine customer base by needlessly and menacingly pursuing when proof of patronage is evidenced. ~£30 seems to be the minimum spend threshold. 

Reassuring, thanks. Ive seen £30 mentioned in various threads. OK, so I'll work on a slightly adapted version of the blueprint letter and may well offer it back here for proof reading, before I send it on to PEye.

LDast

Gr1pr said:

If the NTK PCN letter is compliant with the law named POFA, then pointless hiding the identity of the driver, so better to play the genuine customer needing more time under the Equality Act 2010 card to account for the extra time, without volunteering the reason you disclosed on here 

So genuine shopper requiring Extra time under the reasonable adjustments argument 

The NtK is not fully compliant with the strict requirements of PoFA as it does not include the requirement set out in 9(2)(e)(i). So, for now, do not reveal the identity of the driver. The appellant is appealing only as the keeper, not the driver.

Obviously, all the other arguments apply.

I'm assuming the phots in the NtK are date/time stamped.

murphyb

LD what does NTK stand for?

Your suggestion of appealing only as keeper is along the guidelines I have come across before beginning this thread.

The photos of the vehicle entering and leaving the carpark are time/date stamped yes. Thanks for your message.