Parking Eye help

[charlichee91]

Hey, just looking for some advice really.

Ive read through all the other posts to do with parking eye notices and as some of them have said the legislations changed on october 1st.

 

I recieved a notice from parking eye today saying i have to pay them £80 as i stayed an hour over in a car park, (that you don't need a ticket for).

 

The reason behind this is that i've just started working in one of the retail units recently and none of my shifts are 2 & 1/2 hours or less (the allowed time).

 

Now other people that I work with park in the same car park (without a permit sticker as far as i know) and have not said anything about parking issues.

 

Should I ignore the notice i received completely, or appeal to them and mention something to work?

Thanks

[dx100uk]

its actually not changed

 

just a wee bit of spoofing by those that wish to frighten people

 

ignore them

 

dx

[pcr1]

its actually not changed

 

just a wee bit of spoofing by those that wish to frighten people

 

ignore them

 

dx

 

 

RK is now liable. Granted, they would still have to prove the charge is not a penalty and so on but no longer any need to prove contract with driver so should be a walk in the park in court (in the absence of a good defence).

[BankFodder]

RK is now liable. Granted, they would still have to prove the charge is not a penalty and so on but no longer any need to prove contract with driver so should be a walk in the park in court (in the absence of a good defence).

Not at all sure what this means.

 

*************************************************

 

Read all the material we have about Parking Eye - especially the latest case which is up on the CAGMag.

 

I would very much like to see all the correspondence you receive from them because the High Court has said that much of their communication was not honest and was deceitful.

 

It would be very interesting to see what they are using now.

 

If you could scan it to us at our admin email address, it would be very helpful.

[pcr1]

Not at all sure what this means.

 

*************************************************

 

Sorry, I assumed you knew. It's Schedule 4 Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 makes the RK liable for a "relevant charge" (includes contract charge or damages for trespass or tort as defined in the schedule) if they can't identify the driver and serve a relevant notice on the keeper. After 28 days the keeper then becomes legally liable for the charge specified in the notice.

 

As such, they no longer have to prove who the driver was (so in the past, if you were RK and got the letter and weren't driving, you could say nothing). Now the risk they have the wrong person is no longer there, so can pursue the RK regardless. They still have to justify the charge or damages, I would imagine.

[dw190]

. They still have to justify the charge or damages, I would imagine.

 

Of course they do and pay a fee if the matter is appealed.

[BankFodder]

Sorry it didn't click that RK means registered keeper.