Parking Eye- Appeal on hold

[surveyor_101]

My company having a fleet of vehicles have received an ANPR ticket from a carpark our member staff pulled into for 12 minutes to check an address etc. Stayed in the vehicle and has him exiting etc.

Company sec appealed as its our sign written van and parking eye took the hole 14 days to write back and say appeal on hold until you give us driver details. What's that got to do with it?...

I have picked this up and the commercial guy and I recently got an horizon ticket and sent an appeal template off a website asking tons of questions and surprise surprise they cancelled the ticket on my company car.

I have responded as I don't see what relevance the drivers details have other than he she may of breached their terms.


See my letter


Parking Charge Notice – ************* (Reference your letter dated the 19th April 2016)

Thank you for the aforementioned letter, this makes reference to the appeal being referred due to our organisation not providing the drivers details. I fail to see the relevance of ************* is the registered keepers of the vehicle. (Please note I am not the driver)

I am not ignoring your charge for a purported parking infraction. As this is purely a charge (not a statutory penalty) issued under a purported contract and the driver has not been identified, I require the following information so that I can make an informed decision:

1. Who is the party that contracted with your company for the provision of their services? I require their contact details.
2. What is the full legal identity of the landowner?
3. As you are not the landowner please provide a contemporaneous and unredacted copy of your contract with the landholder that demonstrate that you have their authority to both issue parking charges and litigate in your own name.
4. Is your charge based on damages for breach of contract? Answer yes or no.
5. If the charge is based on damages for breach of contract please provide your justification of this sum.
6. Is your charge based on a contractually agreed sum for the provision of parking? Answer yes or no.
7. If the charge is based on a contractually agreed sum for the provision of parking please provide a valid VAT invoice for this 'service'.
8. Please provide a copy of the signs that purportedly were on site which you contend formed a contract with the driver on that occasion.

If you believe you have a cause of action, send a Letter before Claim within the next 21 days and I will take advice and will respond.

Do not send debt collector letters and do not add any costs or surcharges. I will not respond to those, so to involve another firm would be a failure to mitigate your alleged loss. In any case, the addition of any debt collector 'costs' is not my liability because the POFA 2012 can only potentially hold a registered keeper liable if certain provisions have been met and even then, the 'amount of the parking charge' is the only amount pursuable.





Yours faithfully,

[anothernameitist]

good response.

I suppose at some point, you could say you have identified the driver, but due to data protection you are unable to share those details... and the employee has refuced to allow us to release the details of them too.

See how they deal with that one!

keep us posted

[PurpleMoonlight]

surveyor_101 said:

My company having a fleet of vehicles have received an ANPR ticket from a carpark our member staff pulled into for 12 minutes to check an address etc. Stayed in the vehicle and has him exiting etc.

Is this is a pay and display car park and the driver didn't?

[S11Steve]

surveyor_101 said:

I have picked this up and the commercial guy and I recently got an horizon ticket and sent an appeal template off a website asking tons of questions and surprise surprise they cancelled the ticket on my company car.

Parking Companies rely on the low-hanging fruit of people who pay without question, or with Parking Eye in particular, people who simply ignore the correspondence, oblivious to the law change in 2012.

Put up a fight and they may send a templated letter back with a POPLA reference, but in my own experience they will let it drop, or at worst transfer it to DRP/ZZPS/Wright Hassell/Rossendales/Zenith who will pester you with letters.

[anonymous-user]

Ugh, Rossendales. The mob who insisted they could only talk to my father about his debt, even after they'd received his death certificate. The new tenant in his old flat is apparently still getting the letters addressed to my father demanding payment. He died 14 months ago and they've had two copies of the certificate and five phone calls. Gah. I have given up on them.

Sorry, slightly random and off topic rant there..........

[surveyor_101]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Is this is a pay and display car park and the driver didn't?

Think so he entered got his baring and then exited never left the van, all I have is ANPR and 12 minute time gap.

Not sure if legally we can give them his details but he won't pay it, think my md would pay it rather than go through the hassle of give drivers details. I said I wailed write to them as I think £60 -100 for 12 mins is a bit steep.

Since horizon bent over after that wording was sent and I got a second letter saying it was dropped after I complained to Sainsburys so my horizon ticket was cancelled twice.

[PurpleMoonlight]

The lengths some people will go to to avoid paying when they are clearly in the wrong is astonishing.

You are not breaching the Data Protection Act by advising the drivers details.

[surveyor_101]

I this case he sat in van engine running for 12 mins if you were lost would you pay £60 or £100 quid for 12 minutes sat in ur car reading a map?

Not lengths driver won't pay and Doesn't want his details sent I don't believe the loses are reasonable.

[Monkeylegend]

surveyor_101 said:

I this case he sat in van engine running for 12 mins if you were lost would you pay £60 or £100 quid for 12 minutes sat in ur car reading a map?

Not lengths driver won't pay and Doesn't want his details sent I don't believe the loses are reasonable.

I think you should be paying for crimes against grammar and spelling based on this response.




Only joking before everybody gets uppity.

[surveyor_101]

Monkeylegend said:

I think you should be paying for crimes against grammar and spelling based on this response.




Only joking before everybody gets uppity.

Uppity about someone pulling of a road for 10 mins (not parking) and getting charged £60-£100 for the privilege.

Did it on my phone, that my excuse.

Just doesn't seem reasonable to have to buy a ticket for £4 (for the sake of argument dont know what the charge was) for 10 minutes not in parking bay looking at a map. Just in rush pulled (not in bay) in checked map qued to get out. They don't have proof he parked he could of driven round for 10 minutes!

On the same basis you could enter its very busy not find a space in 10/12 mins exit and get a bill just for driving round and trying to find a space.

ANPR should be for police and government use not barry bodge parking companies or bandit bailiffs.

Edited by surveyor_101 on Tuesday 26th April 13:08

Edited by surveyor_101 on Tuesday 26th April 13:09

[Monkeylegend]

surveyor_101 said:

Monkeylegend said:

I think you should be paying for crimes against grammar and spelling based on this response.




Only joking before everybody gets uppity.

Didn't on my phone, that my excuse.

Just doesn't reasonable to have to buy a ticket for £4 (for the sake of argument) for 10 minutes not in parking bay looking at a map. Just in rush pulled (not in bay) in checked map qued to get out.

On the same basis you could enter its very busy not find a space in 10/12 mins exit and get a bill just for driving round and trying to find a space.

I agree with you, will be interesting to see the response to your letter.

[PurpleMoonlight]

surveyor_101 said:

Uppity about someone pulling of a road for 10 mins (not parking) and getting charged £60-£100 for the privilege.

Then the driver should not have used someone's private property for the purpose.

The legislation allows for the operator to claim the car park charge plus the cost of collection.

£60 seems reasonable.

The car park operator is not at fault here, you driver was.

[surveyor_101]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Then the driver should not have used someone's private property for the purpose.

The legislation allows for the operator to claim the car park charge plus the cost of collection.

£60 seems reasonable.

The car park operator is not at fault here, you driver was.

You would pay £60 to £100 if you pulled in got stuck in a que to find there was no space just based on anpr?

In this case I don't agree however if they can answer the above points and prove the right to litigate on behalf of the landowner and the signage is clearn and complies with BPA Guidance I will advise accounts to pay the £60-£100.

However my experience suggests they won't, bother!

[PurpleMoonlight]

surveyor_101 said:

You would pay £60 to £100 if you pulled in got stuck in a que to find there was no space just based on anpr?

But that didn't happen here so a pointless comparison.

Perhaps you should ask your driver what part of 'pay and display' he didn't understand?

[Monkeylegend]

PurpleMoonlight said:

But that didn't happen here so a pointless comparison.

Perhaps you should ask your driver what part of 'pay and display' he didn't understand?

Pretty obvious really

[surveyor_101]

Monkeylegend said:

Pretty obvious really

Yes unless your out to pick fault and not read my post in its entrirty.


For the cheaps seats HE pulled into the car park didn't park in a bag or exit the van, checked his map and quee to leave.

[Monkeylegend]

surveyor_101 said:

Monkeylegend said:

Pretty obvious really

Yes unless your out to pick fault and not read my post in its entrirty.


For the cheaps seats HE pulled into the car park didn't park in a bag or exit the van, checked his map and quee to leave.

Not having go at you, because having read your post it is obviously the pay bit, so a needless question.

[PurpleMoonlight]

surveyor_101 said:

Yes unless your out to pick fault and not read my post in its entrirty.


For the cheaps seats HE pulled into the car park didn't park in a bag or exit the van, checked his map and quee to leave.

Lucky that, they cost 5p these days which he probably wouldn't have paid either.

[johnfm]

Seems clear to me that the driver pulled in, but it was quite busy and it took a few minutes to find a space.

He read the terms and conditions of parking (whihc took quite a few minutes) and didn't agree with them, so he left the car park.

He didn't enter into a contract to park the car and thus was not in breach.

Note that parking operators, according to their code of practice, are to allow drivers a reasonable time to read and assess the contract terms.

[surveyor_101]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Lucky that, they cost 5p these days which he probably wouldn't have paid either.

Just a moan you wanted then as what 5p and maps has to do with being charged for entering a car park deciding not to park and exciting, then being billed £100 for the privilege.

He spent much the same time as someone looking around for a space or reading the terms.