Parking ticket question.

[Blanchimont]

Before anyone says, I had already paid for parking for the whole week, but to the main point.

I've had about 4 tickets from Parkingeye for a week when I paid upfront to park in a hotel.
Now, circa 3 months later I've received another letter asking for money. Every one they've issued so far, has been quashed without issue, but I'm getting pretty pissed off now with having to deal with this repeatedly.


Does the fact i got this letter 3 months later have any bearing? Is there, like speeding tickets, have a minimum time to respond?

It's mostly just a question tbh.

|https://thumbsnap.com/4tMEuq9J[/url]

[Shepster]

I received one of these recently, I’m sure somewhere on the back it says you have 28 days to appeal from the date of issue, not the offence.

[zarjaz1991]

If it's the fourth time, then as well as the normal responses I'd be putting in a polite but firm complaint to the management of the hotel or its parent company.

[silverfoxcc]

I think they have a maximum of 56 days from date of 'offence' ( Cheeky bds, it is a frigging unsolicited invoice.) to get it to you otherwise they can go and whistle

Check on pepipoo for the small print

[spikyone]

silverfoxcc said:

I think they have a maximum of 56 days from date of 'offence' ( Cheeky bds, it is a frigging unsolicited invoice.) to get it to you otherwise they can go and whistle

Check on pepipoo for the small print

They only have 28 days, as there was no notice to driver. They are well out of time.

The correct response to this is to write back, point out that they were outside the 28 day window to hold you liable as keeper, and that they must pursue the driver. Make it clear that you do not intend to name the driver. If they then reply rejecting your appeal (they aren't known for being reasonable), you will need to appeal to POPLA on the same grounds of no keeper liability, at which point Parking Eye will throw in the towel.


And ignore anyone who posts here and says "invite them to sue you". They don't know what they're talking about. Unlike those posters, I have been through this process with Parking Eye, and the charge was cancelled quickly and painlessly, with minimal effort on my part.

[NDA]

Just out of curiosity, I had a look at Parking Eye's accounts... £38m turnover with a £10m profit. Part of Capita plc.

Meaningless fact, but somehow irritating that they make so much cash.

[pavarotti1980]

spikyone said:

They only have 28 days, as there was no notice to driver. They are well out of time.

The correct response to this is to write back, point out that they were outside the 28 day window to hold you liable as keeper, and that they must pursue the driver. Make it clear that you do not intend to name the driver. If they then reply rejecting your appeal (they aren't known for being reasonable), you will need to appeal to POPLA on the same grounds of no keeper liability, at which point Parking Eye will throw in the towel.


And ignore anyone who posts here and says "invite them to sue you". They don't know what they're talking about. Unlike those posters, I have been through this process with Parking Eye, and the charge was cancelled quickly and painlessly, with minimal effort on my part.

ParkingEye are definitely a company to just "go through the process" with. Most likely resulting in it being cancelled. I would also get onto the hotel manager and complain as they will be able to get it sorted too.

[Red Devil]

spikyone said:

silverfoxcc said:

I think they have a maximum of 56 days from date of 'offence' ( Cheeky bds, it is a frigging unsolicited invoice.) to get it to you otherwise they can go and whistle

Check on pepipoo for the small print

They only have 28 days, as there was no notice to driver.

Incorrect. Where there is no Notice to Driver,* the NtK must be delivered within 14 days.
See PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9(5) - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedul...

 * Which there won't be as PE are clearly relying on ANPR.

The only potential issue for the OP is if he is not the RK - for example the vehicle is leased.
In that case the 14 day obligation is satisfied provided it reaches the leasing company in time.

People should take the time to read and understand Schedule 4 in its entirety.
Because PPCs still screw up their obligations under it (and not just the one in play here either).

Over 5 years after the legislation came into effect, you would think they could manage to get it right.

spikyone said:

They are well out of time.

Subject to the caveat above,
By over two months.

[bad company]

spikyone said:

And ignore anyone who posts here and says "invite them to sue you". They don't know what they're talking about. Unlike those posters, I have been through this process with Parking Eye, and the charge was cancelled quickly and painlessly, with minimal effort on my part.

Yes, much better to keep playing the parking company’s game even though they have apparently issued 4 incorrect tickets in this instance. You went through the process just once.

I wouldn’t invite them to sue in this instance. I’d make a complaint to the hotel the op paid for parking and let them sort it out.

[Car-Matt]

NDA said:

Just out of curiosity, I had a look at Parking Eye's accounts... £38m turnover with a £10m profit. Part of Capita plc.

Meaningless fact, but somehow irritating that they make so much cash.

Why is it annoying?

Plenty of other companies make that kind of profit. Was that net after tax and finance charges etc?

Also profit isn't cash.....you can be highly profitable and have to wind up with poor cashflow, just a pedant point but one worth understanding :-)

[pavarotti1980]

Red Devil said:

Incorrect. Where there is no Notice to Driver,* the NtK must be delivered within 14 days.
See PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9(5) - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedul...

 * Which there won't be as PE are clearly relying on ANPR.

The only potential issue for the OP is if he is not the RK - for example the vehicle is leased.
In that case the 14 day obligation is satisfied provided it reaches the leasing company in time.

People should take the time to read and understand Schedule 4 in its entirety.
Because PPCs still screw up their obligations under it (and not just the one in play here either).

Over 5 years after the legislation came into effect, you would think they could manage to get it right.

If it is a lease they also have supply additional paperwork when requesting the details from lease/hire company and then again to the driver. ANother thing they fail to do as well. You would think if your business model revolves around a piece of legislation they would at least try and follow it, especially given they are now a "pseudo" public sector company owned by Crapita

[NDA]

Car-Matt said:

NDA said:

Just out of curiosity, I had a look at Parking Eye's accounts... £38m turnover with a £10m profit. Part of Capita plc.

Meaningless fact, but somehow irritating that they make so much cash.

Why is it annoying?

Plenty of other companies make that kind of profit. Was that net after tax and finance charges etc?

Also profit isn't cash.....you can be highly profitable and have to wind up with poor cashflow, just a pedant point but one worth understanding :-)

It's annoying because they are profiting from parking errors and causing irritation (see OP). I know we need parking enforcement, but it feels like profiteering.

I am aware of how profits work - have even run a plc., but thanks for the guidance

Their cashflow position is very strong net profit £8m and no debt/financing. A cash generative business.... nice work if you can get it.

[pavarotti1980]

NDA said:

It's annoying because they are profiting from parking errors and causing irritation (see OP). I know we need parking enforcement, but it feels like profiteering.

I am aware of how profits work - have even run a plc., but thanks for the guidance

Their cashflow position is very strong net profit £8m and no debt/financing. A cash generative business.... nice work if you can get it.

They have very little in staffing costs as their operation relies mostly on ANPR. Its software is very clever as it can miss out exits & entries which miraculously result in the issue of a PCN. They must have invested £££s for this bespoke system

[spikyone]

Red Devil said:

spikyone said:

silverfoxcc said:

I think they have a maximum of 56 days from date of 'offence' ( Cheeky bds, it is a frigging unsolicited invoice.) to get it to you otherwise they can go and whistle

Check on pepipoo for the small print

They only have 28 days, as there was no notice to driver.

Incorrect. Where there is no Notice to Driver,* the NtK must be delivered within 14 days.
See PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9(5) - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedul...

 * Which there won't be as PE are clearly relying on ANPR.

The only potential issue for the OP is if he is not the RK - for example the vehicle is leased.
In that case the 14 day obligation is satisfied provided it reaches the leasing company in time.

People should take the time to read and understand Schedule 4 in its entirety.
Because PPCs still screw up their obligations under it (and not just the one in play here either).

Over 5 years after the legislation came into effect, you would think they could manage to get it right.

spikyone said:

They are well out of time.

Subject to the caveat above,
By over two months.

My mistake, yes 14 days with no NTD. I'd assumed, on the basis that OP received the first NTKs in a timely manner, that the lease issue was moot, but that's obviously worth confirming too.

[Blanchimont]

spikyone said:

Red Devil said:

spikyone said:

silverfoxcc said:

I think they have a maximum of 56 days from date of 'offence' ( Cheeky bds, it is a frigging unsolicited invoice.) to get it to you otherwise they can go and whistle

Check on pepipoo for the small print

They only have 28 days, as there was no notice to driver.

Incorrect. Where there is no Notice to Driver,* the NtK must be delivered within 14 days.
See PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9(5) - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedul...

 * Which there won't be as PE are clearly relying on ANPR.

The only potential issue for the OP is if he is not the RK - for example the vehicle is leased.
In that case the 14 day obligation is satisfied provided it reaches the leasing company in time.

People should take the time to read and understand Schedule 4 in its entirety.
Because PPCs still screw up their obligations under it (and not just the one in play here either).

Over 5 years after the legislation came into effect, you would think they could manage to get it right.

spikyone said:

They are well out of time.

Subject to the caveat above,
By over two months.

My mistake, yes 14 days with no NTD. I'd assumed, on the basis that OP received the first NTKs in a timely manner, that the lease issue was moot, but that's obviously worth confirming too.

I was the RK at the time, I've since, in the last month of so, sold the car.

[pavarotti1980]

Blanchimont said:

I was the RK at the time, I've since, in the last month of so, sold the car.

Ah well they have timed out in terms of holding the keeper liable. Write to Parking Eye telling that as per a post above.

You could test the water and say that since they did not have the right to access your personal data from the DVLA (they will have known from their 19 point checks for every PCN issued) then they are in breach of GDPR/DPA. Not sure if this has been done properly yet but there has success in the past with DPA breaches to the tune of £250 per breach damages

[Mandalore]

pavarotti1980 said:

NDA said:

It's annoying because they are profiting from parking errors and causing irritation (see OP). I know we need parking enforcement, but it feels like profiteering.

I am aware of how profits work - have even run a plc., but thanks for the guidance

Their cashflow position is very strong net profit £8m and no debt/financing. A cash generative business.... nice work if you can get it.

They have very little in staffing costs as their operation relies mostly on ANPR. Its software is very clever as it can miss out exits & entries which miraculously result in the issue of a PCN. They must have invested £££s for this bespoke system

I would imagine a small part of their income comes from people who mistakenly park in the wrong place/at the wrong times.

Hence, their systems are geared at people who make deliberate parking decisions.

[bad company]

spikyone said:

And ignore anyone who posts here and says "invite them to sue you". They don't know what they're talking about. Unlike those posters, I have been through this process with Parking Eye, and the charge was cancelled quickly and painlessly, with minimal effort on my part.

Much better to spend your time jumping through hoops provided by the parking industry (4 times in the ops case) based on advice from a rank amateur who wriggled out of 1 ticket.

[Blanchimont]

pavarotti1980 said:

Ah well they have timed out in terms of holding the keeper liable. Write to Parking Eye telling that as per a post above.

You could test the water and say that since they did not have the right to access your personal data from the DVLA (they will have known from their 19 point checks for every PCN issued) then they are in breach of GDPR/DPA. Not sure if this has been done properly yet but there has success in the past with DPA breaches to the tune of £250 per breach damages

That's something I may pursue if they carry on, and get arsey. I sent them this:

Email to Parkingeye said:

Hello,

As per below email, you were notified on Saturday 16 June 2018 that parking had been paid for 23rd-27th April 2018.

So can you explain why, yet again, another ticket has been received for the 25th?

You have already been notified of this, and sending further letters are constituting harassment.

This is considered first and final communication on this matter, and any further correspondence will result in charges for time spent on resolving your incompetence.

[spikyone]

bad company said:

spikyone said:

And ignore anyone who posts here and says "invite them to sue you". They don't know what they're talking about. Unlike those posters, I have been through this process with Parking Eye, and the charge was cancelled quickly and painlessly, with minimal effort on my part.

Much better to spend your time jumping through hoops provided by the parking industry (4 times in the ops case) based on advice from a rank amateur who wriggled out of 1 ticket.

Apparently my post got under your skin so much that you felt the need to reply to it twice...

To help educate you, it's not the parking industry's hoops, it's the government's statute-backed hoops. They're the ones that required an independent appeals service, with the precise aim of this sort of thing not ending up in court. As for "rank amateur", how does one become a professional in such matters? How many times have you (or others proffering similar advice) successfully avoided a parking charge with a single invitation to sue? Since POFA only came into effect in 2012 and Beavis clarified the law on penalties in 2015, the answer to that is "zero" - you can be sued for up to 6 years, after all.

FWIW I didn't "wriggle out" of the charge I was sent. I pointed out the deficiencies in Parking Eye's ability to hold me liable as the keeper under POFA, and refused to name the driver (I was not driving and would have proved that if necessary). Which is exactly what I've advised OP to do. It was quick and easy; one letter to Parking Eye, and one letter to POPLA.