Parking Eye ANPR ticket- POPLA Appeal Refused

[Pdoh]

Hi There,

 

I was wondering what further action I can take against what I regard as an unfair parking charge issued by parkingeye, or if I should just pay up.

 

In summary, I was parked at an Aldi car park for 2hours 14 minutes when it was 2 hours free parking.

I had returned well before the 2 hour time limit but was unable to get into my car as some idiot had parked that close I couldnt get into the drivers side.

 

So I went into Aldi and told them what was going on, which they basically said there was nothing they could do as it was a car park for local shoppers and would have to wait for them to return.

 

A few days later I got a ANPR parking ticket, so I appealed to ParkingEye rejected the appeal and so it went off to POPLA who also rejected the appeal with the following reason

 

"Considering carefully, all the evidence before me, I find that there is clear signage displayed at the site to inform motorists of the 2 hour maximum stay. Therefore, I find that by parking at the site for longer than the maximum stay the appellant breached the terms and conditions of using the site. I also find that if the appellant was unable to leave the site within the 2 hours prescribed, they should have contacted the operator as their contact number is provided on the signage displayed at the site. I find that the

appellant’s case is that of mitigation which does not form a valid ground to allow this appeal."

 

The rejection reason seems to ignore the fact I told the landowners and presume I had a mobile phone with me.

 

Should I just bite the bullet and payup even though I still regard the ticket as unfair?

I'm wary of extra costs etc should it end up going to court if I lose.

 

Paul

[silverfox1961]

Hi and welcome to CAG

 

My opinion, pay nothing.

 

The appeals process is just a step the private parking companies use to 'legitimise' themselves but if they now want you to pay, they have to take you to court. This is a civil case, not a criminal one.

 

You should have done more research before appealing. The pre estimate of loss is the usual route where POPLA allow the appeal.

 

IF ANPR try it on in court (unlikely) they will have to prove their loss and as it was a free car park, what loss have they incurred?

[dw190]

Hi and welcome to CAG

 

My opinion, pay nothing.

 

 

IF ANPR try it on in court (unlikely) they will have to prove their loss and as it was a free car park, what loss have they incurred?

 

This is a Parking Eye issued charge from ANPR cameras.

 

Parking Eye do tend to use court but find it difficult to win when correctly defended.

[silverfox1961]

This is a Parking Eye issued charge from ANPR cameras.

 

Parking Eye do tend to use court but find it difficult to win when correctly defended.

 

OOPS. You are correct. I blame my glasses.

 

OK Parking Eye do do court but they lose a damn sight more than they win.

 

Plenty of evidence around the web to show how to beat them at their own game

[Pdoh]

You should have done more research before appealing. The pre estimate of loss is the usual route where POPLA allow the appeal.

 

Yeah I know that now - I suppose its a lesson learned.

I thought I would take the approach to of detailing what actually happened but unfortunately it doesn't seem to have worked in the appeals process.

[armadillo71]

http://parking-prankster.com/court-claim.html

=Pdoh;4502199]Yeah I know that now - I suppose its a lesson learned.

I thought I would take the approach to of detailing what actually happened but unfortunately it doesn't seem to have worked in the appeals process.

 

It would definitely have been cancelled at POPLA with just a few correctly worded sentences. ..

 

PE now have to take you to the small claims court to try and get you to pay.

It is by no means certain that they will, but you should have a read on the link above.

You'll probably receive DR+ letters soon.

[i hate bailiffs]

It is a lottery regarding court it may or may not happen

I am waiting and have done so for 6 months or so and heard nothing

A few begging letters and nothing

 

You should make Aldi aware of this ask them do they want you to shop elsewhere

Not how customers should be treated

[esmerobbo]

Even if it is a car park for multiple use you were shopping at Aldi and they have a cosy relationship with Parkingeye. In fact I would bet it is Aldi's car park but a condition of PP was for others to be able to use it. Get back to Aldi and explain that you could not leave and that they knew as you reported it to them at the time. Aldi are not very helpful usually as they beleive PE treat people fairly.

 

Your problem has been that neither PE or POPLA do mitigation of any kind.

 

If it did ever get to court you would have as well as the usual points for defence have the fact that you could not leave, and that Aldi and PE knew you could not leave within the time limit.

[ericsbrother]

You contacted the landlord, who should have sorted this mess out. Write to Aldi, copying letter to PE and tell them what hppened and that basically your car couldnt be moved and that if PE are responsible for managing the parking them they have neglected their duties and that you would like to have the charge cancelled otherwise you will consider claiming against them for your losses.

[Pdoh]

You contacted the landlord, who should have sorted this mess out. Write to Aldi, copying letter to PE and tell them what hppened and that basically your car couldnt be moved and that if PE are responsible for managing the parking them they have neglected their duties and that you would like to have the charge cancelled otherwise you will consider claiming against them for your losses.

 

Aldi seem less interested than ParkingEye:-

"I am sorry to hear that your appeal has been unsuccessful. At customer serviceswe unfortunately don't have the authority to challenge Parking Eye, we don'teven have contact with them."

[silverfox1961]

Aldi seem less interested than ParkingEye:-

"I am sorry to hear that your appeal has been unsuccessful. At customer serviceswe unfortunately don't have the authority to challenge Parking Eye, we don'teven have contact with them."

 

HUH!

 

Is there more than one store on the site? If so, Aldi may not be the landowner but if they are then they are telling porkies.

[Pdoh]

HUH!

 

Is there more than one store on the site? If so, Aldi may not be the landowner but if they are then they are telling porkies.

 

Yes they are the legal landowners - but say the contract is between me and ParkingEye.

The carpark is actually owned by Aldi, but it is required to provide 2 hours free parking to local shoppers.

 

I have asked them if they have given ParkingEye authorisation to raise legal proceeding on behalf of Aldi, as if they havent then ParkingEye cant follow it up anyway and they arent the legal landowners.

[esmerobbo]

Aldi seem less interested than ParkingEye:-

"I am sorry to hear that your appeal has been unsuccessful. At customer serviceswe unfortunately don't have the authority to challenge Parking Eye, we don'teven have contact with them."

 

 

Was this on Aldi's facebook page? If so that's not Aldi its a publicity company running their facebook page! You never get an answer to a question regarding parking except them advising you to contact PE.

[ericsbrother]

Aldi have changed their tune in the last 6 months regarding the cancellation of parking charges. PE must have threatened them with a claim for breach of contract and turned down their appeal when Aldi wrote to them.

[Pdoh]

Was this on Aldi's facebook page? If so that's not Aldi its a publicity company running their facebook page! You never get an answer to a question regarding parking except them advising you to contact PE.

 

After asking if they gave ParkingEye authority to raise claims on there behalf as landowners I got the following response from Aldi.

 

"Court proceedings would be started by ParkingEye as they manage the car parks. It would not be on behalf of Aldias we do not receive any revenue from these parkingmeasures."

As ParkingEye arent the legal landowners and they are unable to start proceeding on behalf of Aldi I can't really see why they think they have a leg to stand on.

Also as Aldi get no money from the fines, it cant be argued that it is putting right a loss Aldi has suffered.

 

[silverfox1961]

After asking if they gave ParkingEye authority to raise claims on there behalf as landowners I got the following response from Aldi.

 

"Court proceedings would be started by ParkingEye as they manage the car parks. It would not be on behalf of Aldias we do not receive any revenue from these parkingmeasures."

As ParkingEye arent the legal landowners and they are unable to start proceeding on behalf of Aldi I can't really see why they think they have a leg to stand on.

Also as Aldi get no money from the fines, it cant be argued that it is putting right a loss Aldi has suffered.

 

 

That is interesting. As PE are managing the site on behalf of Aldi, it is still Aldi that suffered the alleged loss. If they get no revenue from PE for any 'loss' this must be seen as a money making exercise. Keep that letter safe.

[Pdoh]

Aldi have changed their tune in the last 6 months regarding the cancellation of parking charges. PE must have threatened them with a claim for breach of contract and turned down their appeal when Aldi wrote to them.

 

Like they did with somerfield when they tried to get out of the contract as they realised it was a massive mistake to get involved with parkingeye.

Edited April 2, 2014 by Pdoh
removed referance to scam artist

[ericsbrother]

Somerfield was VCS and the judge strangely found that breaking the law wasnt enough of a reason to cancel a contract, which is something normally covered by what is known as an unconscionable act or conduct. It was felt that the criminality didnt affect the contract and wasnt serious.

[esmerobbo]

Somerfield was VCS and the judge strangely found that breaking the law wasnt enough of a reason to cancel a contract, which is something normally covered by what is known as an unconscionable act or conduct. It was felt that the criminality didnt affect the contract and wasnt serious.

 

ericsbrother you are mistaken it was indeed PE V Somerfield http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1338.html however you are definitely correct in the rest of your post.

[ericsbrother]

Sorry, I was confusing several other VCS clashes with individuals and VATman.

[queensclose]

i think your gonna have to wait for the court papers to arrive. then come back here.

you could write a letter to them confirming that you prefer to challenge it in court and in the mean time could they send you a copy of the contract they have giving them the right to take you to court, a copy of their breakdown of their pre-estimate loss. even though its below £100. they are still obliged to show it if asked.

tell them that you need to see their pre-estimated loss for this car park only and not for the business on the whole. include that you don't wish to hear that they have successfully sued in the county court for these charges unless they where defended case's and relate to this car park only. in which case you wish them to send the claim numbers.

[i hate bailiffs]

I am still waiting for my court papers

Have done so for 6months or more

If they do send any they have had a bashing in court lately

[Pdoh]

It's been around 8 weeks since my appeal was turned down from POPLA and I have been expecting some letters from either parking eye, their debt collectors or court papers. To date I have heard nothing.

 

Do you think they have forgotten about me, or am I just being too hopeful?

[hightail]

They may get round to you but don't worry yet. One of my neighbours tangled with Parking Eye and didn't seek proper advice until his POPLA appeal was denied. Next step a few weeks later was a letter from PE stating they would be proceeding with a court claim - at which point he came to me. A one liner back to them saying any claim would be vigorously defended as he didn't consider it to be a genuine pre estimate of loss resulted in a reply confirming they were dropping it. I get the feeling they don't want to bother with defended claims.

[ericsbrother]

They are suffering quite badly from that particular defence so it would be unlikely that they would go to the expense of starting a claim they are almost guaranteed to lose so yes, wait until they contact you again (costing them more money and not you) and then respond by saying any claim will be vigourouslt defended on several grounds but whatever those grounds are make sure you include the GPEOL