PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

ParkingEye - overstayed by 32 mins becasue child was ill
ThatsNoMoon
post Sat, 14 Sep 2019 - 08:12
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 14 Sep 2019
Member No.: 105,725



On the 23rd August, I stayed in the ParkingEye Sword in the Stone car park in Cornwall. i paid for 2 hours (after queuing for 3 mins to get to the machine). While at a cafe in the village, my son was ill, and we couldn't leave easily, and returned and left the car park 29 mins after the parking was up. ParkingEye sent me a parking charge notice for £100, and I promptly appealed on their website as I thought they would react fairly to this.

They rejected this appeal in the week, and their letter says that I can appeal further to POPLA, but if I do then the reduction to £60 they have granted me will be rescinded, and I will have to pay the full amount, which o me seems like coercion.

What should I do?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 9)
Advertisement
post Sat, 14 Sep 2019 - 08:12
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Jlc
post Sat, 14 Sep 2019 - 08:47
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31,600
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



These are only won at court. POPLA will not help you.

In this case it was a frustration of contract - upon accepting the contract you agreed to leave within 2 hours, however circumstances beyond your control prevented this.

They will argue you could have paid the additional tariff before leaving.

Whether they'll push all the way to a hearing is questionable but they might.


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Sat, 14 Sep 2019 - 09:03
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



There are a couple of angles here

"Frustration of contract" springs to mind
Something happened that made it impossible for the contract to be completed

Not sure if an ill child rather than a car problem would count

If the child is a young infant, the Equality Act 2010 could be relevant with its requirement for reasonable allowances

None of these arguments will work at POPLA because legal arguments are outside the remit of the assessors
They are only interested in whether the Parking Notice was issued correctly
All you will achieve is hand ParkingEye an "independent" decision to wave in court

I would therefore NOT appeal to POPLA and ignore all correspondence short of a Letter Before Claim

If you receive a letter from a debt collector, that will be a good sign
It's ParkingEye's standard procedure when it doesn't want to take legal action
Debt collectors can and should always be ignored

ParkingEye car parks in tourist areas sometimes allow top-up payments if visitors discover a reason to stay longer
If this wasn't available it weakens ParkingEye's case that it acts in the land-owner's interest

Even if it wasn't officially available, a top-up before leaving would have left ParkingEye struggling to justify their £100

Wait for other opinions but one option is an offer Without Prejudice Save to Costs of £20 in full and final settlement along with a statement that parking was available for longer but their system unfairly didn't allow stays to be extended

If ParkingEye then takes the case to court they must achieve a result that leaves them substantially better off
If they don't, they're responsible for the full costs of the case, even if they win

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ThatsNoMoon
post Sat, 14 Sep 2019 - 10:05
Post #4


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 14 Sep 2019
Member No.: 105,725



QUOTE (Redivi @ Sat, 14 Sep 2019 - 10:03) *
Wait for other opinions but one option is an offer Without Prejudice Save to Costs of £20 in full and final settlement along with a statement that parking was available for longer but their system unfairly didn't allow stays to be extended


So how would this option work? I'd wait until a debt collector letter, then write a letter/email tham saying Without Prejudice Save to Costs and offering them £20 (cheque in the letter?)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Sat, 14 Sep 2019 - 10:54
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



No; that's too late
Debt collectors never accept offers below the original charge and parking companies will no longer discuss the subject

You would contact ParkingEye before the deadline for a POPLA appeal expires and the account can be passed to the debt collector

I don't think it's worth including a cheque
ParkingEye would only return it

The intended reader of the letter isn't ParkingEye; it's a judge

Its purpose isn't to invite ParkingEye to accept the offer
It's to lay the paper trail that paints the company as unreasonable if they take you to court

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ThatsNoMoon
post Thu, 19 Sep 2019 - 05:27
Post #6


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 14 Sep 2019
Member No.: 105,725



Is this something i should do by post, or could/should I do it by email?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 19 Sep 2019 - 10:19
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,342
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



5 days on...
Do it the way you think is best. What mtters is to get the letter in. Post, would be my pref.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Steve_999
post Thu, 19 Sep 2019 - 13:07
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,178
Joined: 12 Jun 2008
From: West Sussex
Member No.: 20,304



QUOTE (Redivi @ Sat, 14 Sep 2019 - 11:54) *
. . . . .

The intended reader of the letter isn't ParkingEye; it's a judge

. . . . .


In which case, by putting "Without prejudice" in the letter you will not be able to put it in front of a judge until/unless the question of costs arose.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 19 Sep 2019 - 13:58
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,342
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Steve 0 which is not what Redivi suggested

"Without Prejudice Save to Costs"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ThatsNoMoon
post Mon, 7 Oct 2019 - 18:22
Post #10


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 14 Sep 2019
Member No.: 105,725



So they finally replied to my letter today, wit an email referring me to their previous letter, and advising me to go to POPLA or pay up. What should my next step be?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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, 21st October 2019 - 01:33
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.