Parking with ease charge notice

cumbriaman · 1 October 2016 at 10:40PM

Hi
I have recently received a charge notice for an alleged parking offence at white moss car park, rydal, Cumbria.
Has any one on here had any dealings with this company and car park.

The alleged offence is dated 30th August and I received the notice on the 28th September even though it's dated 20th.

I'm wanting to appeal the charge and wouldn't mind help in launching an appeal and also what to expect by doing so

Coupon-mad · 1 October 2016 at 11:44PM

Any appeal will be rejected by PWE because they are an IPC firm who routinely reject appeals. Then there is no second appeal worth trying, the IAS being considered a kangaroo court where the IPC member 'goes through the motions' knowing the consumer's appeal is futile:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/is-independent-appeal-service-kangaroo.html

You need to know this lot will bother you for months/years with stupid letters and occasionally try a small claim. The important thing to be aware of is that with a PCN sent 3 weeks after the date of event, this is too late to comply with the POFA 2012 requirements for keeper liability, hence PWE can only hold an admitted/proven driver liable. So - do not say who was driving at any point!

Read the NEWBIES thread and send one challenge just to show you are not being unreasonable as registered keeper - and are not ignoring the letter - but that you are stating that you are not liable and the driver will not be named, end of story.

Come back if you get court papers in the end (any debt can be pursued for 6 years so tell them if you move house, to avoid the sneaky CCJ 'credit clamping' that is now occurring and has been raised to the attention of the Prime Minister).

This 'industry' should hang their heads in shame at their outright greed but they cannot see past the money sloshing around. The ex-clamper scumbags and moneygrabbers were buoyed (utterly baselessly) by the UK Supreme Court last year, who found against a consumer in National Consumer's week, just after the Consumer Rights Act 2015 was enacted (you could not make it up. See the 'ParkingEye v Barry Beavis' case).

Some here would say it is shameful (embarrassing even) that top UK Judges can apparently be so out of touch. They appeared to have no idea of the bigger picture, no idea about the widely-held belief (shared by many MPs) that this is an industry which operates on the very edge of the law and uses any old excuse to issue clear penalties which in most cases are spurious and should never be upheld.

Only one Judge dissented, calling it an unenforceable penalty, contrary to consumer law.

In the Beavis case, it was a genuine shopper consumer (backed by the Consumer's Association calling out a clear 'penalty') versus Capita-backed ParkingEye whose case seemed to present no compelling evidence at all and was based upon relentlessly pursuing someone who was held up in Staples - the fault of Staples themselves, who wanted the charge cancelled. Yet ParkingEye won...and all the disgusting other PPCs are crawling out of the woodwork, greedily trying to sue people on the back of that woeful decision.

So, enjoy the ride & come back if you get court papers.

DO NOT PAY ANY PRIVATE PCN. IF YOU DO, YOU JOIN THE SCAM.

cumbriaman · 2 October 2016 at 1:32AM

Thank for the reply coupon mad,
Is it worth stating anything in the appeal such as time limits, lack of proof etc or should I just say I am not liable and wait for the rejection

cumbriaman · 2 October 2016 at 3:09AM

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Any appeal will be rejected by PWE because they are an IPC firm who routinely reject appeals. Then there is no second appeal worth trying, the IAS being considered a kangaroo court where the IPC member 'goes through the motions' knowing the consumer's appeal is futile:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/is-independent-appeal-service-kangaroo.html

You need to know this lot will bother you for months/years with stupid letters and occasionally try a small claim. The important thing to be aware of is that with a PCN sent 3 weeks after the date of event, this is too late to comply with the POFA 2012 requirements for keeper liability, hence PWE can only hold an admitted/proven driver liable. So - do not say who was driving at any point!

Read the NEWBIES thread and send one challenge just to show you are not being unreasonable as registered keeper - and are not ignoring the letter - but that you are stating that you are not liable and the driver will not be named, end of story.

Come back if you get court papers in the end (any debt can be pursued for 6 years so tell them if you move house, to avoid the sneaky CCJ 'credit clamping' that is now occurring and has been raised to the attention of the Prime Minister).

This 'industry' should hang their heads in shame at their outright greed but they cannot see past the money sloshing around. The ex-clamper scumbags and moneygrabbers were buoyed (utterly baselessly) by the UK Supreme Court last year, who found against a consumer in National Consumer's week, just after the Consumer Rights Act 2015 was enacted (you could not make it up. See the 'ParkingEye v Barry Beavis' case).

Some here would say it is shameful (embarrassing even) that top UK Judges can apparently be so out of touch. They appeared to have no idea of the bigger picture, no idea about the widely-held belief (shared by many MPs) that this is an industry which operates on the very edge of the law and uses any old excuse to issue clear penalties which in most cases are spurious and should never be upheld.

Only one Judge dissented, calling it an unenforceable penalty, contrary to consumer law.

In the Beavis case, it was a genuine shopper consumer (backed by the Consumer's Association calling out a clear 'penalty') versus Capita-backed ParkingEye whose case seemed to present no compelling evidence at all and was based upon relentlessly pursuing someone who was held up in Staples - the fault of Staples themselves, who wanted the charge cancelled. Yet ParkingEye won...and all the disgusting other PPCs are crawling out of the woodwork, greedily trying to sue people on the back of that woeful decision.

So, enjoy the ride & come back if you get court papers.

DO NOT PAY ANY PRIVATE PCN. IF YOU DO, YOU JOIN THE SCAM.

Also, is there any way to private message you about something I don't wish to put on a public post

Coupon-mad · 2 October 2016 at 3:59PM

Sorry I don't take private messages as I got too busy and was recently sent a threat on another forum from a person who should know better. Life's too short.

I would suggest a version of the IPC first appeal shown in the NEWBIES thread, including or deleting whichever questions are relevant and making sure it is shown to be an appeal/challenge not just a list of questions. Then ignore the IAS 'offer'.

cumbriaman · 12 October 2016 at 9:46PM

I sent a letter on the 21st day telling the parking company there is no liability due to the fact POFA time lines hadn't been adhered to and am awaiting a response, today I have been in contact with someone else who had a similar charge on the same alleged date, I have seen a copy of there PCN and the dates the same but they have already gone through the appeal stage and they have had a rejection letter pretty much covering every aspect of appeal, they are also stating that they have not claimed to and are not seeking to pursue the matter through POFA

Coupon-mad · 12 October 2016 at 10:15PM

So - it changes nothing. They probably aren't intending to use the POFA, they are right (they don't have to, the NEWBIES thread tells you that). You and the other victim have cottoned on, I hope, that 'not using the POFA' means they can't hold the keeper liable. Old rules apply, then!

So don't say who was driving and you have a defence point among all the others, should this proceed to a claim.

They use Gladstones for their claims, who appear to check NO details at all and issue 'bulk' court papers to victims in their hundreds, template rubbish with no coherent particulars of claim, they then seem to (very often) muck up claims. I've said on another thread today, I can't recall a case here this entire year where we've helped with a defence and Gladstones actually proceeded to a hearing. When they do, we see them muck it up, discontinue or lose. Trouble is it forces people to defend or they lose. Terrible harassment.

Hopefully this isn't news to you, as you may have found when reading some more of the Parking Prankster's Blogs (link I gave you already shows you his Blogs, loads of Gladstones bungling examples!).

What you and that contact can do which is positive, is complain to your MPs, Mrs May and Mr Corbyn to try to raise this scam industry's profile higher - PLEASE read this and act now even if you both just copy a pre-written template we've shown:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5524754&page=6

Now is the time to strike at the heart of this with complaints. As you will see in that thread, the DCLG are currently considering the private parking industry, now, following a survey last year not yet acted upon. It is bubbling under, so add your voice now by letter. And you friend with the other unfair 'ticket' too.

Best to write your own complaint this weekend but if not there are at least two example templates to copy from in that link, to include when you both send Mrs May, Mr Corbyn and your own constituency MP(s) copies of the blizzard of threats you've had. Please do that...this weekend, to post next week so it lands with a thud on desks and show what is happening with this awful 'credit clamping' threat by ex-car-clampers.

The current greed, extortion and threats we've seen are worse than before clamping was criminalised in 2012. It needs stopping.

cumbriaman · 24 December 2016 at 12:11PM

Just received a reminder today dated the 20 Dec. It says the amount has to be paid final reminder. No response to our appeal in October and the amount hasn't gone up since august. Also the letter isn't even signed by anyone.

Northlakes · 24 December 2016 at 12:52PM

I think PWE are between a rock and a hard place. They have 'Gladstoned' a few times where their costs must have been completely disproportional to the amounts they are trying to recover.
They maybe cottoning on to IPC/Gladstones ruse that which makes money for them and no one else.

I think the courts may also questioning why a PCN isn't POFA compliant? It should be if they are wanting to go legal. Their presumption that the keeper is more than likely the driver is a nonsense even in a domestic situation. Their argument about Elliott V Loake being definitive is also a nonsense.

However that said, get prepared by reading up about IPC/Gladstone cases as Gladstone's will always be pushing for more income.

Parking with ease charge notice

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free