Another Parking Eye question
Discussion
I have tried searching on this but couldn't find an answer, but hoping a learned PH'er can advise.
I received a £100 PCN from Parking Eye recently for a 2hr 52 min stay at the Crowne Plaza Solihull on the 9th March. I know I bought a ticket, and having found it squashed in my wallet, realise that I made the rookie error of entering my registration into the machine....but was actually driving my wifes' car at the time.
I have responded to Parking Eye providing a copy of the parking ticket (with the wrong vehicle reg details), a photo of both cars parked side by side on the drive and suggested PE check their database to confirm that both cars are registered at the same address to me, and that they check their photographic records to confirm that my car neither entered or exited the car park on the date in question.
They have responded today stating that it has come to their attention that an incorrect reg number was entered at the date of the parking event and, as a goodwill gesture, they will say no more about it for a discounted £20 payment.
Now, I know this is only 20 quid, but I have already paid out £7.50 on the day for a ticket, I just made a stupid mistake with the registration details. They have accepted my version of events and I had hoped that would be an end to the matter.
Do I just send them the £20 and chalk it up as a foolish mistake, or tell them to shove it and see what happens next??
I received a £100 PCN from Parking Eye recently for a 2hr 52 min stay at the Crowne Plaza Solihull on the 9th March. I know I bought a ticket, and having found it squashed in my wallet, realise that I made the rookie error of entering my registration into the machine....but was actually driving my wifes' car at the time.
I have responded to Parking Eye providing a copy of the parking ticket (with the wrong vehicle reg details), a photo of both cars parked side by side on the drive and suggested PE check their database to confirm that both cars are registered at the same address to me, and that they check their photographic records to confirm that my car neither entered or exited the car park on the date in question.
They have responded today stating that it has come to their attention that an incorrect reg number was entered at the date of the parking event and, as a goodwill gesture, they will say no more about it for a discounted £20 payment.
Now, I know this is only 20 quid, but I have already paid out £7.50 on the day for a ticket, I just made a stupid mistake with the registration details. They have accepted my version of events and I had hoped that would be an end to the matter.
Do I just send them the £20 and chalk it up as a foolish mistake, or tell them to shove it and see what happens next??
I hae a similar situation with Excel. I was using a company car and put in my own registration number by mistake. Sure enough, the speculative invoice arrived in the post. Although I live in Scotland, as it was a company vehicle I couldn't just ignore it, so e-mailed Excel with my excuse. This wasn't accepted so I went through the "appeal" process to no avail.
After a few weeks the letters from their solicitors Pollock Kerr Schiavone started to come through. I wrote back politely explaining the circumstances, but stating that were was no way in hell I was paying. They ignored this and sent another letter threatening court action. I wrote back to them stating that I would see them in court. I may have dropped a few Latin phrases in as well (Scots Law still loves its Latin words, inter alia, interlocutor, sist and interdict being a few good ones). There are advantages to having had a 20 year career working in the courts!
Five months on, not another cheep out of them...
After a few weeks the letters from their solicitors Pollock Kerr Schiavone started to come through. I wrote back politely explaining the circumstances, but stating that were was no way in hell I was paying. They ignored this and sent another letter threatening court action. I wrote back to them stating that I would see them in court. I may have dropped a few Latin phrases in as well (Scots Law still loves its Latin words, inter alia, interlocutor, sist and interdict being a few good ones). There are advantages to having had a 20 year career working in the courts!
Five months on, not another cheep out of them...
lotuselise137 said:
I have tried searching on this but couldn't find an answer, but hoping a learned PH'er can advise.
I received a £100 PCN from Parking Eye recently for a 2hr 52 min stay at the Crowne Plaza Solihull on the 9th March. I know I bought a ticket, and having found it squashed in my wallet, realise that I made the rookie error of entering my registration into the machine....but was actually driving my wifes' car at the time.
I have responded to Parking Eye providing a copy of the parking ticket (with the wrong vehicle reg details), a photo of both cars parked side by side on the drive and suggested PE check their database to confirm that both cars are registered at the same address to me, and that they check their photographic records to confirm that my car neither entered or exited the car park on the date in question.
They have responded today stating that it has come to their attention that an incorrect reg number was entered at the date of the parking event and, as a goodwill gesture, they will say no more about it for a discounted £20 payment.
Now, I know this is only 20 quid, but I have already paid out £7.50 on the day for a ticket, I just made a stupid mistake with the registration details. They have accepted my version of events and I had hoped that would be an end to the matter.
Do I just send them the £20 and chalk it up as a foolish mistake, or tell them to shove it and see what happens next??
You parked, you paid, you explained, they have the ability to check. This will go nowhere except a stream of letters for the next 6 months or so which you should ignore. It's a try on.I received a £100 PCN from Parking Eye recently for a 2hr 52 min stay at the Crowne Plaza Solihull on the 9th March. I know I bought a ticket, and having found it squashed in my wallet, realise that I made the rookie error of entering my registration into the machine....but was actually driving my wifes' car at the time.
I have responded to Parking Eye providing a copy of the parking ticket (with the wrong vehicle reg details), a photo of both cars parked side by side on the drive and suggested PE check their database to confirm that both cars are registered at the same address to me, and that they check their photographic records to confirm that my car neither entered or exited the car park on the date in question.
They have responded today stating that it has come to their attention that an incorrect reg number was entered at the date of the parking event and, as a goodwill gesture, they will say no more about it for a discounted £20 payment.
Now, I know this is only 20 quid, but I have already paid out £7.50 on the day for a ticket, I just made a stupid mistake with the registration details. They have accepted my version of events and I had hoped that would be an end to the matter.
Do I just send them the £20 and chalk it up as a foolish mistake, or tell them to shove it and see what happens next??
jm doc said:
You parked, you paid, you explained, they have the ability to check. This will go nowhere except a stream of letters for the next 6 months or so which you should ignore. It's a try on.
Or, you cocked up and it took them time and effort to get the facts checked. So the £20 is an admin fee?I would say it’s reasonable and much better than the £100. I would pay it and move on.
fatboy b said:
I'd just stop any correspondance without paying. You've explained the mistake - they've accepted it. As soon as these knob-head parking companies stop bullying the public, the better.
Not great advice, If the OP has already confirmed it was him, and that it was his error, it's an easy case for them to pursue. Parking eye will pursue this and whether they are successful or not, the OP will be in for a whole load of hassle.Car Park use the ANPR data to record when you arrive and leave, the operators know there are loads of people who overstay after deliberately putting in the wrong Reg No. Not the case here but it's how they secure their income.
ive never paid them. Ive had dealings with one of their staff before who was telling me if I didnt move my car he would 'fine' me. I tried to correct him that it was an invoice but he was having none of it. They usually send you a letter with £60 fine then another with £250 odd then it goes back to £60 and they wont take legal action.
I went via Popla appeal and won. copy of my case is below.
quick summary - I asked Parking eye to prove they have the authority of the landowner to operate. The landowner was not the pub (a land registry search showed me who was the true landowner) and they didn't provide this proof and lost.
hope this helps others.
The operator’s case is that the appellant remained on site without purchasing parking time.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the sings do not comply with the British Parking Association’s (BPA)’s Code of Practice and were not prominent enough to form any contract with the driver. She states that signs saying this was a controlled parking area before entering and once on site, were not seen by the appellant. She states that it was dark and there were no illuminated signs that she could see. The appellant has provided a link to Google maps. The appellant states that the only sign that was illuminated was the White Horse signs located at the entrance to the site. The appellant asks that the operator provide proof that they have a proprietary interest in the land and has the capacity to offer or claim for trespass on behalf of the owner. The appellant states that the operator failed to adhere to the BPA Code of practice for grace periods. The appellant has not supplied any documents or images to support her appeal.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
This appeal has been considered in conjunction with any evidence provided by both the appellant and the operator. When it comes to parking on private land, the motorist accepts the terms and conditions of the site by parking their vehicle. The terms and conditions are stipulated on the signs displayed within the car park. The operator has supplied details showing the location of these signs throughout the site and as such I am satisfied this signage informs the motorist that they are entering private land and are required to comply with the terms and conditions displayed on the signs. Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras monitor this site, and from the evidence provided by the operator, it shows the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 17:30 and exiting at 17:44 after a stay of 13 minutes. The operator has also provided both PDF document versions and photographic evidence of the signage displayed on site. From the evidence provided by the operator, the terms and conditions state, “Parking tariffs apply 24 hours a day, 7 days a week”. The signage also offers exemptions for overnight guest and for customers who spend £6 or more on food in the hotel. The motorist is also advised that failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) being issued for £100. I note the appellant’s comments that she wishes to know if the operator has a proprietary interest in the land and has the capacity to offer or claim for trespass on behalf of the owner. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice outlines to operators, “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”. As such, I would have expected the operator to have provided me with a copy of the contract it holds with the landowner. As it has not done so, I cannot establish if it had authorisation to issue the PCN on this site on the day in question. It is the responsibility of the operator to provide POPLA with sufficient, clear evidence in order to rebut the appellant’s claims and prove that it issued the PCN correctly. In this instance, I acknowledge the reason the PCN was issued, however I am not satisfied that the operator has adequately rebutted the appellant’s grounds for appeal to my satisfaction. I can only conclude that the PCN was issued incorrectly. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal, however, as I have decided to allow the appeal for this reason, I did not feel they required further consideration.
quick summary - I asked Parking eye to prove they have the authority of the landowner to operate. The landowner was not the pub (a land registry search showed me who was the true landowner) and they didn't provide this proof and lost.
hope this helps others.
The operator’s case is that the appellant remained on site without purchasing parking time.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the sings do not comply with the British Parking Association’s (BPA)’s Code of Practice and were not prominent enough to form any contract with the driver. She states that signs saying this was a controlled parking area before entering and once on site, were not seen by the appellant. She states that it was dark and there were no illuminated signs that she could see. The appellant has provided a link to Google maps. The appellant states that the only sign that was illuminated was the White Horse signs located at the entrance to the site. The appellant asks that the operator provide proof that they have a proprietary interest in the land and has the capacity to offer or claim for trespass on behalf of the owner. The appellant states that the operator failed to adhere to the BPA Code of practice for grace periods. The appellant has not supplied any documents or images to support her appeal.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
This appeal has been considered in conjunction with any evidence provided by both the appellant and the operator. When it comes to parking on private land, the motorist accepts the terms and conditions of the site by parking their vehicle. The terms and conditions are stipulated on the signs displayed within the car park. The operator has supplied details showing the location of these signs throughout the site and as such I am satisfied this signage informs the motorist that they are entering private land and are required to comply with the terms and conditions displayed on the signs. Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras monitor this site, and from the evidence provided by the operator, it shows the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 17:30 and exiting at 17:44 after a stay of 13 minutes. The operator has also provided both PDF document versions and photographic evidence of the signage displayed on site. From the evidence provided by the operator, the terms and conditions state, “Parking tariffs apply 24 hours a day, 7 days a week”. The signage also offers exemptions for overnight guest and for customers who spend £6 or more on food in the hotel. The motorist is also advised that failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) being issued for £100. I note the appellant’s comments that she wishes to know if the operator has a proprietary interest in the land and has the capacity to offer or claim for trespass on behalf of the owner. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice outlines to operators, “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”. As such, I would have expected the operator to have provided me with a copy of the contract it holds with the landowner. As it has not done so, I cannot establish if it had authorisation to issue the PCN on this site on the day in question. It is the responsibility of the operator to provide POPLA with sufficient, clear evidence in order to rebut the appellant’s claims and prove that it issued the PCN correctly. In this instance, I acknowledge the reason the PCN was issued, however I am not satisfied that the operator has adequately rebutted the appellant’s grounds for appeal to my satisfaction. I can only conclude that the PCN was issued incorrectly. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal, however, as I have decided to allow the appeal for this reason, I did not feel they required further consideration.
Edited by superlightr on Friday 5th April 13:05
The Surveyor said:
fatboy b said:
I'd just stop any correspondance without paying. You've explained the mistake - they've accepted it. As soon as these knob-head parking companies stop bullying the public, the better.
Not great advice, If the OP has already confirmed it was him, and that it was his error, it's an easy case for them to pursue. Parking eye will pursue this and whether they are successful or not, the OP will be in for a whole load of hassle.Car Park use the ANPR data to record when you arrive and leave, the operators know there are loads of people who overstay after deliberately putting in the wrong Reg No. Not the case here but it's how they secure their income.
The Surveyor said:
fatboy b said:
I'd just stop any correspondance without paying. You've explained the mistake - they've accepted it. As soon as these knob-head parking companies stop bullying the public, the better.
Not great advice, If the OP has already confirmed it was him, and that it was his error, it's an easy case for them to pursue. Parking eye will pursue this and whether they are successful or not, the OP will be in for a whole load of hassle.Car Park use the ANPR data to record when you arrive and leave, the operators know there are loads of people who overstay after deliberately putting in the wrong Reg No. Not the case here but it's how they secure their income.
Squiddly Diddly said:
jm doc said:
You have paid them, they have no case. They are no grounds for charging an administration fee as it's not in the contract and they the sum they are asking for is not for "administration" by their own admission.
He paid them to park a different car, not the car he parked.bad company said:
Squiddly Diddly said:
jm doc said:
You have paid them, they have no case. They are no grounds for charging an administration fee as it's not in the contract and they the sum they are asking for is not for "administration" by their own admission.
He paid them to park a different car, not the car he parked.Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff