The dreaded parking eye..... **Ticket Cancelled**

[Carmor]

Cheers!

[Nev Met]

Registration is correct, think they may be "trying it on" ?

 

If the ticket that you have has the correct registration number clearly displayed then they've either cocked up or there is a fault with their systems.

 

If they are claiming that you inputted the wrong registration number then that would suggest that they hold some sort of audit trail or evidence to that effect (they wouldn't just make up an excuse would they)

 

If you submit a complaint to the DVLA that ParkingEye unlawfully accessed your data because they did not have 'reasonable cause' (and explain why) then the DVLA will require ParkingEye to provide them with all of the information that they have relating to your case.

 

The DVLA can then check exactly what happened and the voracity of the explanation offered by ParkingEye

 

The DVLA will then advise you as to the outcome of the investigation and what action, if any has been taken.

 

Finally, once the DVLA has concluded it's investigation then, if you wish, you can ask the DVLA to send you a copy of the information that they obtained from Parking Eye.

 

(If you want to do this and need some guidance and assistance then please let me know)

[Tony P]

Carmor

 

I'm delighted that you have finally been relieved of the worry on this occasion.

 

But remember your original concerns and ask yourself if you should have been put to that in the first place.

 

If, upon reflection, you still feel PE were being speculative in attempting to extract your cash from you I would earnestly suggest you consider Nev Met's offer of assistance.

 

I have had no connection or contact with him - but I have researched his background and Consumer activities and regard him as among the most informed here - possibly the most, outside of qualified legal specialists. His research and tenacity is peerless.

[kirkbyinfurnesslad]

Indeed tony a well versed user

[Surfer01]

Registration is correct, think they may be "trying it on" ?

If registration was incorrect, how did they manage to trace you. Lying gits!

[Nev Met]

If registration was incorrect, how did they manage to trace you. Lying gits!

 

What they are saying (as I understand it) is that the OP inputted the incorrect registration number into the P&D machine and hence it didn't cross reference with their ANPR cameras and match up as a vehicle that had entered correctly P&D then left.

 

They are suggesting (I'm guessing) that because he put the wrong number in the P&D machine their ANPR flagged his (correct) registration as a non payer and hence the postal parking charge.

 

My argument is that if the OP has the P&D ticket which shows he did put the correct number into the P&D machine then it rather makes a nonsense of the PE justification.

 

They should therefore be required to produce evidence of what they are claiming.

 

If (as I suspect) they are simply seeking to cover up an unlawful request for data by blaming consumer error at the ticket machine then they need to be held to account.

[ericsbrother]

Ah, PE's cameras probably picked up your reg no on the way into the car park and the ticket machine verified this but as the plate reader actually misread your reg on the way out (or vice versa)then PE's computer decided that you had overstayed by a day and you were sent a demand for not leaving the car park.

Thease ANPR's are not infallible, I have spent my time queueing in a loacl petrol station looking at the ANPR reader display on their wall and about 1 in 30 come out wrong depending upon relative position of the vehicle to camera, mud, light levels etc. PE dont want to admit to you that THEY are in the wrong because their automated syatem cocked up so they do what the police do under those circumstances and give you a "mind how you go" veiled threat.

[Nev Met]

Ah, PE's cameras probably picked up your reg no on the way into the car park and the ticket machine verified this but as the plate reader actually misread your reg on the way out (or vice versa)then PE's computer decided that you had overstayed by a day and you were sent a demand for not leaving the car park.

 

No that's not what PE said to the OP go back and read the OP's post at 16.41 yesterday - attention to detail please.

 

ParkingEye are saying that the OP inputted the wrong number into the P&D machine.

[Surfer01]

No that's not what PE said to the OP go back and read the OP's post at 16.41 yesterday - attention to detail please.

 

ParkingEye are saying that the OP inputted the wrong number into the P&D machine.

If OP did input the wrong number and the ANPR picked up the correct number, how were they able to tie the two together. Surely they had no right to obtain the OP's details from the DVLA as there was no issue.

[Nev Met]

If OP did input the wrong number and the ANPR picked up the correct number, how were they able to tie the two together. Surely they had no right to obtain the OP's details from the DVLA as there was no issue.

 

We know that the OP's P&D ticket has the correct number on it - ParkingEye have said he put the wrong number in but rather bizarrely it printed out a ticket with the correct number - now I know we are in the era of smart technology age but this is taking it to extremes.

 

This is why we need the DVLA to investigate, we could speculate 'til the cows come home but there is sufficient suspicion here to merit a complaint to the DVLA for an investigation and that's the only way of knowing for sure who's in the wrong.

 

The P&D ticket shows the correct registration number - what can't speak can't lie.

[ericsbrother]

Which is why I said that it is their system that has misread his plate on either entry or exit but not both but they are blaming OP as otherwise they would have to admit an error with their ANPR and that would open the floodgates for people to challence the veracity of their system, how and how frequently it is calibrated and even if they didnt find any more errors that caused a claim to be made it would cost them money to manually check every time someone queried it. Imagine the problems they would have if it was generally demanded from them to produce all of the captured data for every likely court case because they had to prove that they had recorded only the numbers they say they had and there was no double dipping etc.(see other posts on this)

[Nev Met]

Which is why I said that it is their system that has misread his plate on either entry or exit but not both but they are blaming OP as otherwise they would have to admit an error with their ANPR and that would open the floodgates for people to challence the veracity of their system, how and how frequently it is calibrated and even if they didnt find any more errors that caused a claim to be made it would cost them money to manually check every time someone queried it. Imagine the problems they would have if it was generally demanded from them to produce all of the captured data for every likely court case because they had to prove that they had recorded only the numbers they say they had and there was no double dipping etc.(see other posts on this)

 

I almost give up

 

Have you actually seen for yourself a bog standard ParkingEye Notice to Keeper?

 

I would be extremely grateful if the OP could simply be left to decide whether or not he wishes to submit a formal complaint to the DVLA (without being unnecessarily distracted by any more preposterous, nonsense or laughable theories)

[tomtubby]

Having just read this thread my personal opinion is that Parking Eye are being "economical" with the truth and if this was my case I would almost certainly be making enquiries with DVLA ( if not for yourself but for so many other people who are facing identical situations with these companies.

[dw190]

Not only economical with the truth but persisted to harras the op to the Court. Not only would I be complaining to the DVLA but also seeking compensation from Parking Eye.

 

The OP has all the evidence that the claim by PE was an unlawful demand from the onset.

[Scouse Magic]

I almost give up

 

Have you actually seen for yourself a bog standard ParkingEye Notice to Keeper?

 

I would be extremely grateful if the OP could simply be left to decide whether or not he wishes to submit a formal complaint to the DVLA (without being unnecessarily distracted by any more preposterous, nonsense or laughable theories)

 

The problem is that the DVLA will have every angle covered and will never admit to anything even if it was obvious......so whilst a complaint may raise a few eyebrows, not much will come of it

[tomtubby]

The problem is that the DVLA will have every angle covered and will never admit to anything even if it was obvious......so whilst a complaint may raise a few eyebrows, not much will come of it

 

I am sorry Scouse Magic but your negative posts are really not helpful to posters coming on the forum seeking help.

 

If people were to do as you suggest and not to complain then DVLA will be of the mistaken belief that "everything in the garden is rosy" and that these previous "rouge clamping companies" have cleaned up their act and that Section 56 of PoFA (which introduced keeper liability ) is working just fine....when in fact, the OPPOSITE is true !!!

[Scouse Magic]

I am sorry Scouse Magic but your negative posts are really not helpful to posters coming on the forum seeking help.

 

If people were to do as you suggest and not to complain then DVLA will be of the mistaken belief that "everything in the garden is rosy" and that these previous "rouge clamping companies" have cleaned up their act and that Section 56 of PoFA (which introduced keeper liability ) is working just fine....when in fact, the OPPOSITE is true !!!

 

And your aggressive manner is becoming somewhat unsavoury......No need for it......Just because you are a debt counsellor doesn't mean you are always correct.....

 

We are not talking about wheel clamping, we are talking about a PCN

 

It may well be helpful to complain to the DVLA but at the end of the day, they get big money out of releasing RK details.......

 

Last October they suspended 5 companies from accessing RK details for gross misconduct (Or at least that is what we thought.)

 

Same companies could access the same information via a free link service....

[tomtubby]

Scouse.

 

Thank you for your response. There is no need for rudeness. I have been posting on the forum since 2007 and have responded to over 6,000 enquiries. Apart from you today nobody has EVER said that I have an "aggressive manner".

 

LIke everybody else I make mistakes but one mistake I will NOT make is to lead somebody into believing that the parking notices are "speculative notice" . I would also never suggest that somebody should go to court. Never ever.

 

Working as I have done for many years as a Debt Counsellor has given me a great insight into legal proceedings and I have probably been in either a county court or magistrates court at least 100 times (if not more) during the course of my work ( many times for "training purposes"). I can assure you that there is nothing worse than seeing litigants in person trying hard to defend themselves in small claims procedures and worse still, when faced with counsel representing the claimant.

 

Have you personally ever been into court and did you win?

 

PS: Despite my user name, I am a female so please stop the rudeness.

[Scouse Magic]

Scouse.

 

Thank you for your response. There is no need for rudeness. I have been posting on the forum since 2007 and have responded to over 6,000 enquiries. Apart from you today nobody has EVER said that I have an "aggressive manner".

 

LIke everybody else I make mistakes but one mistake I will NOT make is to lead somebody into believing that the parking notices are "speculative notice" . I would also never suggest that somebody should go to court. Never ever.

 

Working as I have done for many years as a Debt Counsellor has given me a great insight into legal proceedings and I have probably been in either a county court or magistrates court at least 100 times (if not more) during the course of my work ( many times for "training purposes"). I can assure you that there is nothing worse than seeing litigants in person trying hard to defend themselves in small claims procedures and worse still, when faced with counsel representing the claimant.

 

Have you personally ever been into court and did you win?

 

PS: Despite my user name, I am a female so please stop the rudeness.

 

Well quite frankly I do find your comments in a few posts towards me aggressive, and as you have been on here since 2007, you should know better, and accept that everyone is entitled to their own opinion..

 

I have never advised anyone to ignore anything...

 

Victory in court is never guaranteed however as long as one can argue points of law / legislation and put up a good defence these companies will fail...

 

To answer your question...Yes I have been inside a court room, and yes I won and what is more the full transcript has been made available..

 

People on these forums have their own minds and they can weigh up any information which they feel helps them and discuss it in an open forum.....

 

A lot like popla but I personally prefer route one, however all wins are good wins

[Nev Met]

Last October they suspended 5 companies from accessing RK details for gross misconduct (Or at least that is what we thought.)

 

Correction

 

Last September (2012) they suspended six companies for misrepresenting registered keeper liability.

 

(Those companies did not access registered keeper data via any other means nor where they allowed to submit retrospective applications for data as OPC had done previously)

[Scouse Magic]

Correction

 

Last September (2012) they suspended six companies for misrepresenting registered keeper liability.

 

(Those companies did not access registered keeper data via any other means nor where they allowed to submit retrospective applications for data as OPC had done previously)

 

What do you make of this then......My partner had letters from Roxburghe during their suspention quoting the same nonsense, and having approached Mike Butler of the DVLA on how this can be, here is part of his response......

Impact of Suspension

Non fee customers

As the statements made by Roxburghe were contrary to the BPA code, the suspension only affects their access for fee paying enquiries. They are continuing to process enquires for local authorities and railways. As stated, BPA membership and adherence to the code does not apply to these enquiries.

[themagician]

Scouse.

 

Thank you for your response. There is no need for rudeness. I have been posting on the forum since 2007 and have responded to over 6,000 enquiries. Apart from you today nobody has EVER said that I have an "aggressive manner".

 

LIke everybody else I make mistakes but one mistake I will NOT make is to lead somebody into believing that the parking notices are "speculative notice" . I would also never suggest that somebody should go to court. Never ever.

 

Working as I have done for many years as a Debt Counsellor has given me a great insight into legal proceedings and I have probably been in either a county court or magistrates court at least 100 times (if not more) during the course of my work ( many times for "training purposes"). I can assure you that there is nothing worse than seeing litigants in person trying hard to defend themselves in small claims procedures and worse still, when faced with counsel representing the claimant.

 

Have you personally ever been into court and did you win?

 

PS: Despite my user name, I am a female so please stop the rudeness.

quote

LIke everybody else I make mistakes but one mistake I will NOT make is to lead somebody into believing that the parking notices are "speculative notice" . I would also never suggest that somebody should go to court. Never ever.

 

strange as day in day out members of the site team post on threads as they are " speculative invoices"

yet I don't see you or anybody else posting as to the validity of their statement.

Edited October 26, 2013 by themagician

[Mike_hawk]

quote

LIke everybody else I make mistakes but one mistake I will NOT make is to lead somebody into believing that the parking notices are "speculative notice" . I would also never suggest that somebody should go to court. Never ever.

 

strange as day in day out members of the site team post on threads as they are " speculative invoices"

yet I don't see you or anybody else posting as to the validity of their statement.

 

Perhaps there's a few (or many) rogue posts, my impression was the site team had advocated following the appeal and popla process in order to overcome any future ADR issues in the event of filing.