@morrisons Parking 'Invoice' from Parking Eye, with incorrect name

[sinking]

I've just got a parking invoice from Parking Eye for parking in a paid carpark for 2 hrs 30 minutes. The car park was £1 for 2 hours in a Morrisons carpark, but it took 31 minutes to get parked , anyway just off to appeal this when I noticed something strange, the name of the invoice is missing the last letters of my name, ie instead of "Annie Barbara Clarke" it says "Annie Barbara Clar", am I obliged to respond to this or is there a better way to handle this ?

 

 

As a side note, there was no parking ticket issued by any parking attendants, so I am not sure how this can be enforced ?

[sinking]

clarification

[sinking]

I've worded this letter, anyone recommend any changes :

 

The Driver would like to appeal the notice to keeper provided for ticket number xxxxxx/xxxxxx

 

You have stated that the reason for your invoice is parking for a duration of longer than 2 hours, however the car was actually parked for less than the two hours due to the fact that the car park was busy and had to wait inside the carpark for a car to exit a parking space as well as waiting with the engine running whilst waiting to exit the car park. Your ‘Charge notice’ refers to parking, yet your notice does not provide any evidence of any parking, only entry and exit times, as such I APPEAL this ‘Charge notice’.

 

It should also be noted that this is a paid carpark, for which the driver queued for some time to purchase a £1 ticket which was validated by Morrison’s, and no parking overstay ticket was attached to the vehicle for any overstay by any parking attendant. Again, your notice simply refers to the entry and exit times and not the time that the vehicle was parked correctly, which was less than 2 hours. I would also contend that you have not allowed for any grace period as per the guidelines from the BPA (British Parking Association) to allow for entry and exit of the car park or purchase any ticket.

 

As the charge for the car park is £1 for 2 hours, your £85.00 ‘Parking Charge’ is not a Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss and is some 8,500% higher than the contractual charge for the car park. I would also remind you that your charge may not include any costs of CCTV or signage, but only losses incurred by the parking in question. Clearly I expect you to give a detailed breakdown of how your charge of £85 is fair, reasonable and not punitive. It is clear to any layperson, that your charge of £85 is clearly punitive and as such unenforceable.

If you reject this appeal, you are required to do so within 14 days and provide a correct POPLA code which I will then refer to the PARKING ON PRIVATE LAND APPEALS organization. I would remind you that as the car park charge is £1 per 2 hours, I estimate the Genuine Pre-Estimate of ANY Loss at £1.

 

Edited June 8, 2014 by sinking

[armadillo71]

You appeal as the registered keeper.

That is who the parking charge notice is addressed to. You state that you are under no obligation to name the driver. ( because you are not. )

Did the invoice come within 14 days of the car parking date?

[sinking]

yes, it came within 6 days.

[armadillo71]

yes, it came within 6 days.

 

Ok.

But you are appealing as the registered keeper not the driver. Amend your appeal as such , and also state that as reg keeper you are not liable for this charge, and under no obligation to name the driver.

 

If you have a receipt, then include a copy of it with your appeal.

[silverfox1961]

Hi

You can use any reason you wish to appeal this as PE will reject you. What you want is the POPLA code.

 

I have seen quite a few cases now where PE have failed to file an evidence bundle to both the keeper and POPLA meaning that the appeal is allowed.

 

PE also like doing court so to avoid this you must follow procedure (no matter how much PE fail to do so)

[sinking]

Well this has got a little strange.

 

Had a letter back from PE, not rejecting my appeal but says :

 

 

After investigating, there are no vehicle details within the parking system that in anyway resemble your vehicle registration.

 

 

In order for ParkingEye to cancel this parking charge, we will need valid evidence indicating that you did not break the terms and conditions stipulated on the signage.

And no POPLA code provided, and giving me another 14 days to respond.

 

 

I'm tempted to write back, stating that it is up to them to provide evidence that the car was actually parked.

 

 

The also sent the standard letter, separately, that they need only provide a business justification and not a GPEOL.

 

 

Any views on this ?

[armadillo71]

Write back stating that by law they have to offer you access to an independent appeals service.

You will let POPLA decide if the parling charge is valid.

Give them fourteen days for a response before you consider the matter closed.

[dadtaxi]

this smells of the 'delay until the time limit for POPLA appeal runs out '. A common tactic ( see parking prankster who has picked this up as a particular issue) write back stating that on submitting your appeal the only valid reason not to issue a POPLA code in their response is a cancelation of the ticket You demand a POPLA code by return and any delay will be referred to BPA as a formal complaint and highlighted in your POPLA appeal as a procedural impropriety

[sinking]

Letter sent, lets see what they say this time.

 

Thank you

[sonuwd]

they usually ignore most of the letters sent as an appeal.

[sinking]

Finally got a response with Popla code, was a bit annoyed that the response letter was dated 26th, but took a week for it to arrive, but hey ho.

 

 

Now to submit my appeal.

 

 

PE did respond

 

 

You have stated that you do not believe that the parking charge amount is pre-estimation of loss or that is it extravagant/unfair/unreasonable. Please note that HHJ Moloney QC has recently presided over a court hearing

 

 

I might be mistaken, but this case refers to a penalty, as PE notices are CHARGES and NOT PENALTIES. Also PE continue to state that they do not need to provide a PRE-ESTIMATE OF LOSS due to this.

 

 

Any tips on filling in the Popla ?

Edited July 10, 2014 by sinking

[ericsbrother]

well, they would say that wouldnt they? Also one of the people they quote has appealed so it may end up setting a precedent one way or another.

Your appeal to POPLA is that 1/ you do not believ that PE has a contract with the landowner that allows them to make claims in their own name and thus cannot form a contract with the motorist.

2/there was no breach of contract as the vehicle was not PARKED for more than the allowed time and PE's method of number plate capture is flawed because it can only determine time of entry and exit, not parked time.

3/ that if a contract is formed the breach has caused no loss to PE and thus the claim is not one for liquidated losses nor a genuine pre-estimate of loss and is thus a penalty charge.

[armadillo71]

The Cambridge case that PE are quoting is irrelevant to almost all other car parks that they infest.

Unless they are paying Morrisons £1000 a week to have the right to issue their invoices, then it has no bearing...

And as ericsbrother has mentioned, it has gone to appeal.

 

Appeal to POPLA as above, and when PE see that you have mentioned genuine pre estimate of loss, then they will offer no evidence and the charge will be cancelled...

[sinking]

Would you enter the appeal online or in the post ?

[silverfox1961]

Would you enter the appeal online or in the post ?

 

I suggest doing it by post and send it be Signed For delivery. That is the only way to ensure that you know they get your appeal.

 

I don't know if the online appeals service has an auto reply option to say whether they have received your appeal.