Parking Eye fine

[Scott0966]

My son parked in a car park which had recently changed to having parking eye involved so got caught on the 4 hour limit (cinema + food so not an unreasonable mistake to make). He's not the registered keeper so the letter wasn't addressed to him.

I've had the following advice on another forum site and wondered what the collective opinion was on here as if it was the right way to go. I'm hesitant to just ignore it which I know was the old advice, but wary of making contact. I've tried asking the cinema but they weren't interested in helping (not a car park they own) so I've plastered a few reviews pointing that out for others. It makes me feel a little better

Anyway, the advice was as follows (the notification dates do go over the 14 days referred to)

Dear Sirs,

I have just received your Parking Charge Notice xxxxx for vehicle VRM xxxx

You have failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, failing to deliver the notice within the relevant period of 14 days as prescribed by section 9 (4) of the Act. You cannot, therefore, transfer liability for the alleged charge from the driver at the time to me, the keeper.

There is no legal requirement to name the driver at the time and I will not be doing so.

Any further communication with me on this matter, apart from confirmation of no further action and my details being removed from your records, will be considered vexatious and harassment. This includes communication from any Debt Collection companies you care to instruct.

Yours etc

[chas49]

My son parked in a car park which had recently changed to having parking eye involved so got caught on the 4 hour limit (cinema + food so not an unreasonable mistake to make). He's not the registered keeper so the letter wasn't addressed to him.

I've had the following advice on another forum site and wondered what the collective opinion was on here as if it was the right way to go. I'm hesitant to just ignore it which I know was the old advice, but wary of making contact. I've tried asking the cinema but they weren't interested in helping (not a car park they own) so I've plastered a few reviews pointing that out for others. It makes me feel a little better

Anyway, the advice was as follows (the notification dates do go over the 14 days referred to)

Dear Sirs,

I have just received your Parking Charge Notice xxxxx for vehicle VRM xxxx

You have failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, failing to deliver the notice within the relevant period of 14 days as prescribed by section 9 (4) of the Act. You cannot, therefore, transfer liability for the alleged charge from the driver at the time to me, the keeper.

There is no legal requirement to name the driver at the time and I will not be doing so.

Any further communication with me on this matter, apart from confirmation of no further action and my details being removed from your records, will be considered vexatious and harassment. This includes communication from any Debt Collection companies you care to instruct.

Yours etc

Only a minor point but it's actually paragraph 9(4) of Schedule 4 that you're relying on - section 9 of the Act is about "Material retained for purposes of national security" and there is no sub-section 4.

Also worth double-checking that you are counting the days correctly as the relevant paragraph says "The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended."

[Howard]

It would be helpful to know how much the parking fine is for.

Out of interest, I looked up details of the company you are about to fight and I see that "Parking Eye is the UK’s biggest private parking company, with a turnover of £25 million per year." Reading the article linked below it suggests that they are expert at pursuing motorists who try to avoid paying fines.

I'm sympathetic to your situation, but feel you should really consider your options before sending a letter.

Have you taken legal advice on the wording of your letter? Are you sure your final paragraph is correct? The legal department of Parking Eye might not be too concerned at it.

It could be fun to fight against a big company and their debt collectors and win, but it might cost a lot and involve a lot of stress. Sorry to ask this, but is it worth it?

regards

Howard

PS I've faced a similar situation as a Dad who generously paid for a hire car which got a ticket. I paid up!

https://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/parking-eye/

[Scott0966]

£60 increasing to £100 if not paid fairly quickly.

I'm aware they rely on the 'not worth bothering with' and it being easy to pay. Relying on the web isn't the ideal method though I know Pepipoo is a reasonably good source of info (as is this site)

[GoSeigen]

My son parked in a car park which had recently changed to having parking eye involved so got caught on the 4 hour limit (cinema + food so not an unreasonable mistake to make). He's not the registered keeper so the letter wasn't addressed to him.

I've had the following advice on another forum site and wondered what the collective opinion was on here as if it was the right way to go. I'm hesitant to just ignore it which I know was the old advice, but wary of making contact. I've tried asking the cinema but they weren't interested in helping (not a car park they own) so I've plastered a few reviews pointing that out for others. It makes me feel a little better

Anyway, the advice was as follows (the notification dates do go over the 14 days referred to)

Dear Sirs,

I have just received your Parking Charge Notice xxxxx for vehicle VRM xxxx

You have failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, failing to deliver the notice within the relevant period of 14 days as prescribed by section 9 (4) of the Act. You cannot, therefore, transfer liability for the alleged charge from the driver at the time to me, the keeper.

There is no legal requirement to name the driver at the time and I will not be doing so.

Any further communication with me on this matter, apart from confirmation of no further action and my details being removed from your records, will be considered vexatious and harassment. This includes communication from any Debt Collection companies you care to instruct.

Yours etc

Only a minor point but it's actually paragraph 9(4) of Schedule 4 that you're relying on - section 9 of the Act is about "Material retained for purposes of national security" and there is no sub-section 4.

Also worth double-checking that you are counting the days correctly as the relevant paragraph says "The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended."

Also be careful about sub-paragraph (5) which explains how to count from the date of posting. Do you know for sure the date of posting?

If taking this all into account they still look out of time then I think your defence is a good one, but if it were me I might also note the dates you are using in the letter so that they can see the force of your argument (and of course rebut it if they think you have made a mistake).


GS

[jackdaww]

.

avoid camera controlled car parks .

are you a member of any legal support groups , such as which? legal ?

is there an ombudsman to go to ?

i doubt parking eye will even bother to read your emails .

[GoSeigen]

.

avoid camera controlled car parks .

are you a member of any legal support groups , such as which? legal ?

is there an ombudsman to go to ?

i doubt parking eye will even bother to read your emails .

Sorry but how are any of these points of use to the OP?

-He can't avoid camera controlled car parks because he's already been there and received the demand for payment and time travel is difficult.
-How does belonging to a legal support group answer the question in the OP?
-The OP is asking the questions!! Even if there is an ombudsman, it should only be approached AFTER dealing with the parking company.
-Parking Eye failing to read the email makes no difference to the legal point surely. Personally I think they WILL read it, but even if they didn't that would work in favour of the OP as they would now be ignorant of his strong case.


GS

[jackdaww]

.

avoid camera controlled car parks .

are you a member of any legal support groups , such as which? legal ?

is there an ombudsman to go to ?

i doubt parking eye will even bother to read your emails .

Sorry but how are any of these points of use to the OP?

-He can't avoid camera controlled car parks because he's already been there and received the demand for payment and time travel is difficult.
-How does belonging to a legal support group answer the question in the OP?
-The OP is asking the questions!! Even if there is an ombudsman, it should only be approached AFTER dealing with the parking company.
-Parking Eye failing to read the email makes no difference to the legal point surely. Personally I think they WILL read it, but even if they didn't that would work in favour of the OP as they would now be ignorant of his strong case.


GS

============================

just general thoughts that i thought may be of help to OTHERS .

do we have to be so clinical ?

i'll get my coat ...

[dealtn]

just general thoughts that i thought may be of help to OTHERS .

do we have to be so clinical ?

i'll get my coat ...

This is a "Practical" Board though, not a "General Thoughts" Board.

[jackdaww]

just general thoughts that i thought may be of help to OTHERS .

do we have to be so clinical ?

i'll get my coat ...

This is a "Practical" Board though, not a "General Thoughts" Board.

=======================

ok thanks . my bad .

[chas49]

Moderator Message:
As has been correctly pointed out, this is a 'Practical' board so it would be appreciated if *all* posters stick to discussing the practical issues raised by the OP and not debating the rights or wrongs of each other's contributions. It is a general rule on this site that users do not respond to posts which they consider breach a site rule, but use the "report this post" (exclamation mark) buttton to bring it to the attention of a moderator or administrator. (chas49)

[GoSeigen]

Moderator Message:
As has been correctly pointed out, this is a 'Practical' board so it would be appreciated if *all* posters stick to discussing the practical issues raised by the OP and not debating the rights or wrongs of each other's contributions. It is a general rule on this site that users do not respond to posts which they consider breach a site rule, but use the "report this post" (exclamation mark) buttton to bring it to the attention of a moderator or administrator. (chas49)

With hindsight, yes, I could have reported the post, but at the time I didn't know that it was intended as a "general thoughts" post and the points looked distinctly unhelpful or off-putting to the OP, hence my rebuttal, which was also intended to help the OP. For example, he'd simply be wasting his time going to the ombudsman or even looking them up because an ombudsman is approached only if you are dissatisfied after dealing directly with a business and their resolution procedure. Likewise telling the OP not to bother writing because the other party would not read his correspondence is distinctly unhelpful and does not assume good faith, which should be the basis of how we deal with people. It really didn't occur to me that this was the poster breaking the rules of the site, it just looked like bad legal advice.

GS

[chas49]

Moderator Message:
As has been correctly pointed out, this is a 'Practical' board so it would be appreciated if *all* posters stick to discussing the practical issues raised by the OP and not debating the rights or wrongs of each other's contributions. It is a general rule on this site that users do not respond to posts which they consider breach a site rule, but use the "report this post" (exclamation mark) buttton to bring it to the attention of a moderator or administrator. (chas49)

With hindsight, yes, I could have reported the post, but at the time I didn't know that it was intended as a "general thoughts" post and the points looked distinctly unhelpful or off-putting to the OP, hence my rebuttal, which was also intended to help the OP. For example, he'd simply be wasting his time going to the ombudsman or even looking them up because an ombudsman is approached only if you are dissatisfied after dealing directly with a business and their resolution procedure. Likewise telling the OP not to bother writing because the other party would not read his correspondence is distinctly unhelpful and does not assume good faith, which should be the basis of how we deal with people. It really didn't occur to me that this was the poster breaking the rules of the site, it just looked like bad legal advice.

GS

Moderator Message:
Point noted. As we don't discuss moderation generally, I won't respond further other than to say that my moderator notice was intended as a general note to everyone and not a specific criticism of any one post/er.

Now back to the original issue...

[JonnyT]

Try this forum: http://forums.pepipoo.com/

I've got myself and several friends out of such fines in the past from Parking Eye.

[Scott0966]

Just coming back with an update...

PE rejected my initial appeal on the basis that the PoFA didn't apply for this parking ticket so I then had to compile a case for POPLA which was exactly the same as my initial appeal. They found in my favour purely on the fact that PE had not complied with the PoFA in trying to transfer liability to the registered keeper. I had what's described on some boards as a 'golden ticket' which POPLA will always find in favour of. It highlights the integrity (or total lack of it) of PE.

If anyone reads this looking for advice I might point them in the direction of the MSE website (message boards) rather than Pepipoo though a combination of both is probably a good idea. Hopefully new laws are on their way to reduce the likelihood of that happening.