Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hang on, I'll get into trouble for this but really! 12 years paying a DD you nothing about.................... and then you blame D&G. They would have notified you at your last known address or email at each renewal, every year, with ample opportunity to cancel each year.   12 Years!!   Bad things happen in the world of CAG but you really must bear some of the responsibility here.   H    
    • Should have access to all the data on the account tomorrow.  latest response from Barclays.   Dear    Thank you for your patience while this matter has been under review.   I’m afraid I’ve not yet been able to get the answers I need from the relevant team to allow me to provide you with any more information. However, please be assured I will continue to work on this and I will provide you with a further update no later than 29 January 2021.   Kind regards   Customer Relationship Manager Barclays
    • I know it would be a hassle to put all that in. However certain things that help your case and destroy their WS would probably mean that even Simple Simon as stupid and greedy as he is, would probably decide that yours was one case that he did not want to challenge in Court. If he lost on the relevant land part, his whole business at Southend airport would be over.    He would have many motorists who have paid coming back to him plus claiming GDPR payments and every other airport that they control would probably have a claim against him too..   So you are best to hit him with a strong WS to stop him from going to Court. Will it stop him if you include all that. It should do but he may have the chutzpah to think that he can argue his way out of it.  So your choice.  
    • Thanks for that, point one just confirms what I thought, I will get back to work on it with those suggestions in mind. Cheers
    • Two quick and immediate points:   1. Do NOT get your employer to suggest you were exhausted. You shouldn't drive whilst exhausted and it aggravates the offences. But in any case, since you are pleading guilty to them it doesn't matter. The circumstances of each offence are not relevant when the court considers your EH argument. By that time you have been convicted of them and how or why they happened is not a consideration.    2. Instead your employer's letter to the court should concentrate on the "Hardship" that others (e.g. the company or your colleagues) will suffer if you are banned. It should also cover why no alternatives are available to them (e.g. are your skills and knowledge scarce such that they cannot easily be replaced; can they not train somebody else quickly to do your job). That sounds harsh but your employer will be asking the court to accept that they will suffer hardship. Part of doing that is to demonstrate that no practical alternatives are available.   Remember, you will get three points for each offence whatever mitigation you offer for them - that is the minimum. So you don't need to concentrate on that. Concentrate on explaining the exceptional hardship that you or others will suffer.
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies

ParkingEye Holiday Inn Guildford - No PCN received prior to second notice

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1342 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hello there,

my wife received a letter from ParkingEye Monday 22nd May dated 17th May 2017.



This is regarding an outstanding parking charge amount due of £100 from Holiday Inn Guildford with the alleged offence occurring 5th April 2017.


My main concern is that my wife did not receive a PCN beforehand.



In the letter it states that 29 days have passed from the notice of parking but this is the first correspondence received.



I still have the right to appeal but only if there are mitigating circumstances as the initial 28 days to appeal have passed.



I would just like to know if I have a good case, and if ParkingEye are able to provide evidence they sent out the PCN if it has in fact been lost in the post?


Also to add to this,

my wife believes that this is a new charge and did not see any clear obvious signage, although she is used to the car park being free.



Either one of us will go back to the site to see what signage is in place although the alleged date is over a month ago giving ParkingEye plenty of opportunity to change/add signage.


The letter reads:


“We are writing to inform you that the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act in respect of keeper liability have now been satisfied and as 29 days have passed from the date notice of the Parking Charge was given, ParkingEye now has the right to recover any unpaid part of the Parking Charge from you, the registered keeper.


The amount now payable is £100.00. This payment is required within 14 days to avoid further action.


If this letter is ignored, further action may include referring to a Credit Reference Agency to confirm the correct address, instruction of solicitors to secure immediate payment, referral to debt recovery or the issuing of court proceedings, all of which could incur further costs which may be added to the amount owed.



To avoid further unnecessary costs or action, please pay the outstanding parking charge amount as stated above or make arrangements for the driver to pay, in accordance with the parking terms and conditions. Further information including how to pay, the right to appeal ect. Can be found on the reverse of this notice.


Please be aware that on the 4th November 2015, the Supreme court dismissed the further appeal lodged in relation to the matter of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. The appeal concerned the value of ParkingEye’s Parking Charges and the Judgment, granted in ParkingEye’s favour, delivers a binding precedent in respect of the value of the Parking Charge. The Judgment can be found by visiting the news section of our website and the article: ‘Supreme Court uphold Court of Appeal Judgment’.”


Any help would be much appreciated, many thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

its was an ANPR capture so theres no PCN on the windscreen


if you can complete this in please:



all will become clear to you:

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would also be quite useful if you could scan in the NTK that you have and upload it to the thread. Please remove any identifying marks such as name, address, registration, code numbers (including QR & Bar codes) but leave things like dates visible.


ParkingLie don't usually get these things wrong, but there's always an exception to the rule, so if we can see it, we may be able to spot something.



It would also be very useful if either yourself or your wife could pop back to the site and take pictures of any & all signage in the car park (even if it doesn't relate to car parking), as well as any entrance signs as you drive in off of the public road.


You may have to do a little bit of legwork, running & phoning around, but these bandits can be beaten. thumbup.gif

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

they mention the passing of 29 days so that suggests a screen ticket. as does the rest of the wording.


What to do?

The KEEPER writes to PE and states that no notice to driver was ever issued

so "strict proof" of this is required including a copy of the alleged notice to driver

and photographic evidence of this in place on the vehicle

and also of the vehcile in situ causing the alleged breach of contract

( you didnt say what it was they claim caused her to owe them money,

that must be on their paperwork so I have guessed the most likely).



The keeper does not say who was driving and always refer to themselves as that rather than I or by name.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for all of your responses.


I have attached the actual letter as asked for.


Will wait to see if there are any more responses and then draft a letter of appeal.


Hello dx100uk, thank you for supplying the link, will answer those questions now:


1 Date of the infringement

05 April 2017


2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date]

17 May 2017. Although "29 days have passed from the date notice of the Parking Charge was given" suggests I should have received something else beforehand which I did not receive.


3 Date received

22 May 2017


4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [y/n?]



5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event?

Images online of entering and leaving car park


6 Have you appealed? {y/n?] post up you appeal]

N. Will be sending an appeal within the next day.

Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up


7 Who is the parking company?



8. Where exactly [carpark name and town]

Holiday Inn Guildford, Surrey


For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under.





Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...