PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

ParkingEye PCN Sidcup Leisuee centre, Ticket purchased but since binned
Loveacuppa
post Sun, 24 Feb 2019 - 23:19
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 19 Feb 2019
Member No.: 102,522



Hi,
As registered keeper, I’ve received a PCN from ParkingEye that doesn’t actually say why it’s been issued:



The driver used Sidcup leisure centre on the date of the event and paid for a ticket with cash on the day but since discarded the ticket after use.
Not PCN issued on the windscreen, this is first contact via post.

The PCN only seems to detail that the vehicle was registered as entering and leaving during a 1hr 20 min window. There’s nothing that clearly details the reason for a parking charge being issued.
Does this lack of information give me a grounds for appealing on breach of POFA 9(2)©? In so much that it doesn’t provide the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable

Is that best point of appeal? Ive been reading in similar threads that some suggest that the GPEOL route is not worth arguing despite the Bevis case not being a pay to park.

The POFA section in the PCN quotes 9(2)(f) as after 29 days which I guess is a misquote too?

Just want to make sure I’m covering all bases for appeal

Thanks
LAC
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Sun, 24 Feb 2019 - 23:19
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
ostell
post Mon, 25 Feb 2019 - 08:57
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,506
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Third paragraph on the back page gives the reason.

9 (2) (f) states 28 days starting with the day after.... so they, in common with others, state 29 days after..... Strictly a misquote but the result is the same.

The driver either didn't pay or not enough or the machine failed to record the entered VRM correctly or the ANPR camera had misreads.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Loveacuppa
post Tue, 26 Feb 2019 - 21:21
Post #3


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 19 Feb 2019
Member No.: 102,522



The driver paid but didn’t keep a ticket so must be either the wrong VRM or ANPR misread.
Does a misread happen and how do they issue a PCN assuming it’s reg details that are used to obtain address to send the PCN ?

Can I appeal to PE requesting for all data stream information from their PDT machines at the time to evidence any close/partial match VRM?
Are there manual checks that are carried out by PPCs to look for fat finger situations? Suppose they settle for automated checks that spew out PCNs?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Tue, 26 Feb 2019 - 21:46
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,506
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



You can appeal to PE denying that the driver didn't pay and there machine misrecorded the entered VRM. You want the records about the time of entry to see what was actually recorded

They don't do a check, why would they, it would reduce their income!

You can complain that if the payment machine did not recognise the number as being in the car park why did it accept money?

Complain to the manager of the centre

This post has been edited by ostell: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 - 21:46
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 27 Feb 2019 - 09:36
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,105
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



They do "up to" 19 manual checks
"up to" includes 0.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Wed, 27 Feb 2019 - 10:04
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,506
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



That included the company that did the checks when one Lynzer of this parish wheeled a shopping trolly out of a car park with his number plate on it and issued a NTK
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
teccom
post Fri, 1 Mar 2019 - 16:15
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 30 Dec 2016
Member No.: 89,349



QUOTE (Loveacuppa @ Sun, 24 Feb 2019 - 23:19) *
Hi,
As registered keeper, I’ve received a PCN from ParkingEye that doesn’t actually say why it’s been issued:



The driver used Sidcup leisure centre on the date of the event and paid for a ticket with cash on the day but since discarded the ticket after use.
Not PCN issued on the windscreen, this is first contact via post.

The PCN only seems to detail that the vehicle was registered as entering and leaving during a 1hr 20 min window. There’s nothing that clearly details the reason for a parking charge being issued.
Does this lack of information give me a grounds for appealing on breach of POFA 9(2)©? In so much that it doesn’t provide the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable

Is that best point of appeal? Ive been reading in similar threads that some suggest that the GPEOL route is not worth arguing despite the Bevis case not being a pay to park.

The POFA section in the PCN quotes 9(2)(f) as after 29 days which I guess is a misquote too?

Just want to make sure I’m covering all bases for appeal

Thanks
LAC


My wife had more tickets here than you can shake a stick at, sincerely haven't paid a single one, at POPLA appeal they didn't contest a single appeal, once had the Leisure Centre itself overwrite one.
They have issued one for a single digit mistake which they cannot do, but they rolled on and lost at POPLA, despite claiming their quality checks officer OR whatever it was had checked, but they lied and lost.

One thing I would encourage every one in these types of carparks to do is ALWAYS keep your ticket, the times you see the tickets on the floor by the machine because they state you do not have to display the ticket in your car (don't trust them!).

The checks they do is lies, we had a PCN from them recently when we actually had the ticket, this one blew me away, as I am looking at a ticket with NO mistake for the window of parking they claimed, it beggared belief, so they asked us for a copy of proof, I asked for a POPLA number knowing it would cost them, and they soldiered on went to POPLA and lost again!

The best and last one was my missus blatantly forgot to pay, so off we went again, I sent a POPLA appeal when I got the code with signage/claimed we had a ticket, need LEASE holder proof etc. AND they dropped it, didn't want to contest the POPLA appeal!

So I would say if its a LEASE car 100000% you will win, if you haven't even got a ticket sod it, as they have given up on that with me before when presented an argument so I do wonder if they have legal issues OR know they are not conforming to something on this site.

Park at the CoOp (all day if you choose) they never contest and always hold every single appeal at initial appeal as their signs are all broken and ancient!!!


QUOTE (ostell @ Wed, 27 Feb 2019 - 10:04) *
That included the company that did the checks when one Lynzer of this parish wheeled a shopping trolly out of a car park with his number plate on it and issued a NTK


That is brilliant!!!

Is there any photos of the PCN?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LBPCNotice
post Wed, 13 Mar 2019 - 11:45
Post #8


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 22 Nov 2018
Member No.: 101,073



Is there any update on this? I have just received a similar one, and wondering what you did?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Loveacuppa
post Fri, 15 Mar 2019 - 23:15
Post #9


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 19 Feb 2019
Member No.: 102,522



spoke to the manager last weekend who offered to call later in the week to ask about close matches entered at the time but yet to hear back on that. As seems to be the case in a number of examples I've read up on here, the managers often seem to be adamant that they cannot get a ticket overturned.

I've therefore sent a response via their online appeals submission (which will no doubt get rejected) and as agreed by Ostell, have asked for records of registrations entered in and around time of entry up to a period of 11 minutes afterwards to account for permitted grace period. I've included other reasons for dispute including poor signage breaching BPA code of practice around usage of ANPR.

Waiting now for POPLA code to submit appeal
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Loveacuppa
post Fri, 15 Mar 2019 - 23:27
Post #10


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 19 Feb 2019
Member No.: 102,522



QUOTE (ostell @ Tue, 26 Feb 2019 - 21:46) *
You can appeal to PE denying that the driver didn't pay and there machine misrecorded the entered VRM. You want the records about the time of entry to see what was actually recorded

They don't do a check, why would they, it would reduce their income!

You can complain that if the payment machine did not recognise the number as being in the car park why did it accept money?

Complain to the manager of the centre


Cheers Ostell. Included these in my appeal response

QUOTE (teccom @ Fri, 1 Mar 2019 - 16:15)
They have issued one for a single digit mistake which they cannot do, but they rolled on and lost at POPLA, despite claiming their quality checks officer OR whatever it was had checked, but they lied and lost.

One thing I would encourage every one in these types of carparks to do is ALWAYS keep your ticket, the times you see the tickets on the floor by the machine because they state you do not have to display the ticket in your car (don't trust them!).

The checks they do is lies, we had a PCN from them recently when we actually had the ticket, this one blew me away, as I am looking at a ticket with NO mistake for the window of parking they claimed, it beggared belief, so they asked us for a copy of proof, I asked for a POPLA number knowing it would cost them, and they soldiered on went to POPLA and lost again!


Thanks teccom. Goes to show what a p!$$take Parkingeye are. It's outrageous that they can be allowed to get away with these kind of practices to scam money out of people genuinely paying up to use their sire (which in itself is a liberty for gym members !)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LBPCNotice
post Mon, 18 Mar 2019 - 11:18
Post #11


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 22 Nov 2018
Member No.: 101,073



I would go into the leisure centre and speak to the manager directly if I were you, he did actually manage to get my previous one cancelled - wrong VRN entered apparently. He tried to get my current one cancelled but they said I didn’t pay at all, when I did. They’ve just rejected my appeal so off to popla now.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Loveacuppa
post Sat, 30 Mar 2019 - 16:15
Post #12


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 19 Feb 2019
Member No.: 102,522



So appeal was posted a couple of weeks back and the following was received. Take it these are stalling tactics/attempt to push for payment again?:

Dear Sir / Madam,
Thank you for your correspondence in relation to the Parking Charge incurred on <date & time removed> at Sidcup Leisure Centre car park.
We are writing to advise you that your recent appeal has been referred for further information.
You have stated that you were not the driver of the vehicle at the date and time of the breach of the terms and conditions of the car park, but you have not indicated who was.
You have already been notified that under section 9(2)(b) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 that the driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay this parking charge in full. As we do not know the driver’s name or current postal address, if you were not the driver at the time, you should tell us the full name and the current postal address of the driver.
You are warned that if, after 29 days from the Date of Issue, the parking charge has not been paid in full and we do not know both the name and current address of the driver, we have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from you, the registered keeper. This warning is given to you under paragraph 9(2)(f) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and is subject to our complying with the applicable conditions under schedule 4 of that Act.
Please note, if you have made or wish to make an appeal on behalf of the driver, and you do not provide the full name and current postal address of the driver, ParkingEye will be obliged to deal with the representations made in your name.
ParkingEye have placed this charge on hold for 28 days to enable you to provide the evidence requested. If this information is not provided within 28 days, the appeal may well be rejected and a POPLA code provided.
Alternatively, payment can be made by telephoning our offices on 0330 555 4444 or by visiting www.parkingeye.co.uk or by posting a cheque or postal order to the address detailed below.
20 March 2019
ParkingEye Ltd, PO Box 565, Chorley, PR6 6HT
If this charge has been paid and you choose to provide further evidence relating to your appeal, please forward this to us for consideration.
Yours faithfully

Wait out for them to either cancel or reject appeal and provide POPLA code I guess?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Sat, 30 Mar 2019 - 21:08
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,506
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



So they feel they have not got a good case against the keeper so they are trying hard to get the driver's name. Yes ignore, wait for the next letter
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Loveacuppa
post Sun, 31 Mar 2019 - 08:10
Post #14


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 19 Feb 2019
Member No.: 102,522



Thought that might be the case. Thanks for confirming Ostell :thumbup
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Loveacuppa
post Thu, 18 Apr 2019 - 08:07
Post #15


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 19 Feb 2019
Member No.: 102,522



So PE acknowledged receipt of my appeal on 16th Marchand sent the above correspondence about placing the charge on hold for 28 days on 20th March.
I’ve not heard anything from them and the 28 days have now passed. I would have expected them to at least written to say they were going to cancel the charge at very last minute in the hope I might have paid up in the mean time. (Checked both inbox and junk folders multiple times now to make sure I haven’t missed anything)
Does this mean they can no longer follow up on this having exceeded their window to respond to my appeal and not provided a POPLA code? Or should I still expect further follow ups from PE?
Cheers
LAC
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Thu, 18 Apr 2019 - 09:07
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,506
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



I think the limit is 35 days to respond or the appeal is accepted but this may have changed. Check the latest BPA Code of Practise.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ManxRed
post Thu, 18 Apr 2019 - 09:16
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,473
Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Member No.: 21,992



Paragraph 22.8 from v11 of the BPA Code of Practice:

QUOTE
You must acknowledge or reply to the appeal within 14
days of receiving it. If at first you only acknowledge the
appeal, or your reply does not fully resolve it, normally
we would expect you to seek the additional information
you require from the motorist and accept or reject
the appeal in writing not more than 35 days after the
information required to resolve it has been received
from the motorist. It is acknowledged that in exceptional
circumstances, an investigation into a appeal may take
longer than 35 days after such information has been
received and in these instances the motorist must be
advised accordingly and given a date by which they
can expect a resolution. If this date cannot be achieved
then the motorist must be written to again and a
revised resolution date agreed. We may require you to
demonstrate that you are keeping to these times


--------------------
Sometimes I use big words I don't understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Thu, 18 Apr 2019 - 10:07
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,247
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



A much earlier version of the Code of Practice said that, if the appeal wasn't rejected within 35 days, it was deemed accepted

With the torrent of companies leaving to join the IPC, the BPA was in no position to risk losing its biggest member by refusing to change this inconvenient term in the Code of Practice
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ManxRed
post Thu, 18 Apr 2019 - 10:38
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,473
Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Member No.: 21,992



Yes. "We would expect you to..." is a lot softer than "you must..."


--------------------
Sometimes I use big words I don't understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Loveacuppa
post Thu, 18 Apr 2019 - 14:36
Post #20


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 19 Feb 2019
Member No.: 102,522



Thanks all. Guess it’s not over yet then. Will keep you posted on any further correspondence
Had hoped that it was all over.

Thanks to everyone for all your assistance so far
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Monday, 20th May 2019 - 19:39
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.