Jump to content


Parking Eye - PCN Deansgate locks Manchester NTK Late


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1420 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi, First the details of the alleged 'offence'...

 

1 Date of the infringement - 01/07/2017

 

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] - 21/07/2017 (20 days after the 'event')

 

3 Date received - 23/07/2017

 

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

 

5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? - Yes, images of the vehicle entering and leaving the car park

6 Have you appealed? {y/n?] post up you appeal] Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up - No, thought I'd ask for advice here before doing anything.

 

7 Who is the parking company? - Parking Eye

 

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] - Premier Inn, Deansgate Locks, Manchester

 

For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. - The notice only mentions POPLA in respect to appeals but it says they are a member of BPA.

 

 

My son and daughter-in-law used this car park and my son paid for a ticket for considerably longer than the time they actually parked for.

 

He can't remember the exact period he paid for (and they've lost the ticket), but as they were going to an event they didn't expect to finish until after 10pm, he knows it was for considerably longer than the time they spent there.

 

Having said that, the Parking Charge Notice/Invoice makes no mention of why the charge has been issued, we're just assuming it's for staying too long. Is it normal that the 'offence' isn't mentioned on these charge notices?

 

If it is, how is someone meant to appeal or defend themselves against an unspecified transgression?

 

I've read in other CAG posts that these notices must be received within 14 days of the alleged 'offence' (it's termed an 'event' on Parking Eye's invoice) - does that apply in this case as well because it turned up 22 days later and was issued 20 days after the event?

 

I've attached a copy of the PCN as a file - can't seem to figure out how to add it as an image like others on here are doing, hope that's not a problem.

 

Can anyone suggest the best course of action to take?

 

Many thanks

Parking-Lie.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

out of time then.

unless they issue a claimform

I suspect pretty safe to ignore them.

 

 

wonder if he typed in the wrong reg number?

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

Thanks for the response...

 

I'm happy to take your advice and tell them to ignore the notice,

but you also said 'unless they issue a claimform'

 

 

- if that happens, won't it make things more difficult in that they won't have responded to the initial notice or used the POPLA process?

 

 

I'm sure I've seen it said in other posts that a court would take a dim view of this.

 

Forgive me if I'm overthinking this,

it's not a subject I know much about (aside from what I've read here), and I'd hate it if they ended up owning these bandits money.

 

Thanks again

 

Sorry, forgot to address your point about the wrong reg number...

 

That might have been the case, could they use that as a grounds for an appeal if it gets that far?

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes

look at the thread titles in this forum

several are wrong reg threads

 

 

dx

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

I thought in a case such as this one the recipient of the NTK should send a soft appeal 'I don't agree that any charge is enforceable, please issue a POPLA code' and then appeal to POPLA saying it s out of time for keeper liability?

 

Ignoring is not the right thing to do any more?

Link to post
Share on other sites

the NTK fails to mention anything at all that would make it legit, not just the fact that it is late.

wait and see if they send a reminder

then you can tell them that the NTK was issues too late to create a keeper liability,

does not say what the event that caused the moaney to be claimed is,

does not say whether it is a contractual demand or a demand for monies due as a result of a breach of contract

and finally doesnt say who the creditor is.

 

 

As all of these are required to be included in a notice under the POFA PE should now cease corresponding with the keeper or risk being sued for breach of the DPA for not adhering to the terms of their KADOE contract.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your help ericsbrother - that's great information to know.

 

I'll update the thread if they hear anything else from PE and also if it goes any further.

 

 

I'm guessing if they do send a reminder it'll be around the end of August...

Link to post
Share on other sites

wrong reg?

well that is their tough luck if they havent got an ANPR system that works properly.

 

No,

they cant appeal as the law is strict on this matter,

they MUST do this and that or no keeper liability.

That is why not saying anthing at present is to your advantage,

 

 

currently they have used the wrong process and if they keep going down that road

they cant suddenly change their minds and say

"oh, we think that we guessed the wrong reg and now want to claim that we know you were driving somebodys car, even if it wasnt yours so pay us anyway".

 

I would say that their letter isnt POFA compliant in its content

because they know that it is late

no point trying to fulfil the other requirements of the Act,

just send out a random demand and hope you pay up.

 

 

I cant see this one having legs TBH

let them write to you and see what that letter says.

 

 

Might be a nice threatogram from a toothless dca (read all about them)

Edited by honeybee13
Paras.
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Update as promised...

 

PE have now sent a second, identical, copy of their invoice - so I'm guessing I need to send them a reply now that they are obviously not going to let this go. Am I right in thinking I need to deal with this before they involve a collection agency?

 

I've never written one of these letters before so, using ericsbrother's advice, how does this look?

 

Dear PE,

 

Ref Number: xxxxxxxx

 

Please cancel the above parking charge on the basis of the following:

 

1. Your Notice To Keeper was issued too late to create a keeper liability. Alleged 'event' occurred on 01/07/17 - 'parking charge' issued 21/07/17 (outside the 14 day limit).

 

2. It does not state what the event that caused the money to be claimed is.

 

3. It does not say whether it is a contractual demand or a demand for monies due as a result of a breach of contract.

 

4. It does not say who the creditor is.

 

As all of these are required to be included in a notice under the Protection of Freedoms Act, Parking Eye should now cease corresponding with the me or risk action for breach of the Data Protection Act for not adhering to the terms of their Keeper of a Vehicle at the Date of an Event contract.

 

Regards

 

As I said I've never written one of these before so if there's anything I need to add/remove before I send it, please feel free to chime in.

 

Thanks again for all the advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

looks ok

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

OK that makes sense, I'll leave it until they start to threaten action before we send them anything - may as well let them rack up their costs as much as possible....

Link to post
Share on other sites

my sentimant entirely

Most of the time their business model is rubbish as it relies on collecting charges only

they have to invent breaches of onerous contracts to earn a living.

 

Keep costing them money and mak sure they cant collect the "charges" and they go bust, Mind you, it is usually their failure to pay their tax bills that sinks the companies but they just start another one because the govt and companies house dont have the desire to go after them for everything they can

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

2nd update as promised...

 

I've received a 3rd letter from PE but I'm not sure if this one counts as the 'threatening' letter or not. The only reason for my uncertainty is they mention the possibility of sending a solicitors letter after 14 days so maybe I shouldn't send my letter until I receive the next letter from them.

 

Any thoughts?

 

Thanks

PE Final Notice .pdf

Edited by dx100uk
23Mb 1 page scan reduced to <.2Mb
Link to post
Share on other sites

ignore that

 

 

dx

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

PE just proving that they dont read peoples letters and then claim they have the worlds greatest quality control system in place so it must be someone else's fault that things go wrong..

 

 

See their response to their recent spanking in Bournemouth where they blame anything other than themselves, even though no-one else was involved

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks dx & ericsbrother...

 

I haven't sent them anything as yet in reply to their 3 letters.

 

 

Can I just clarify at which stage I should be sending them something, as it doesn't look like they're going to just give up at any stage?

 

What will the letter say/threaten that I should reply to - any ideas?

 

Thanks again

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 th aug you posted up a letter and we said it was OK.

you could send it now so you have created a paper trail before they send the LBA via their solicitors.

 

 

You could also leave it a fortnight and then send a similar letter

but start it off by saying that any debt to your client is denied and it is denied that the keeper was the driver at the time.

 

 

If you have some evidence you were elsewhere at the time such as at work then that will hurt them a lot

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have some evidence you were elsewhere at the time such as at work then that will hurt them a lot

 

No we don't have that evidence because the registered keeper was the driver at the time. They paid the parking fee at the time, then something went wrong (i.e. wrong reg number or computer error) to make this charge appear.

 

I'm going to send the letter now and hopefully they will realise they can't enforce this and they'll go away.

 

I'll update the thread if/when I hear back from them...

Link to post
Share on other sites

what are you wittering on about?

 

The POFA is a method of creatig a keepr liability, not a contract

them sending out the NTK late meanss they cannot rely on that.

 

 

If you want to shoot yourself in the foot,

reload and then shoot your other foot then carry on with the duff ticket machine argument,

 

 

otherwise send a letter denying liabilty as stated.

 

 

The stuff about a wonkly ticket machine is for another day

 

Do some reading on the matter

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you misunderstand me...

 

What I said wasn't meant to infer I was considering using "the duff ticket machine" argument,

I was just replying to your point in a previous post about having evidence that the Keeper was somewhere else at the time of the event.

 

My intention is/was to send out the letter I outlined on August 10th denying liability - that letter has now been sent.

 

I appreciate any and all the advice I've received so far and don't see any reason someone would ask for advice on here then not follow it - that would be crazy.

 

Thanks again

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

3rd update as promised...

 

After sending the following letter to Parking Eye:

 

Dear PE,

Ref Number: xxxxxxxx

Please cancel the above parking charge on the basis of the following:

1. Your Notice To Keeper was issued too late to create a keeper liability. Alleged 'event' occurred on 01/07/17 - 'parking charge' issued 21/07/17 (outside the 14 day limit).

2. It does not state what the event that caused the money to be claimed is.

3. It does not say whether it is a contractual demand or a demand for monies due as a result of a breach of contract.

4. It does not say who the creditor is.

As all of these are required to be included in a notice under the Protection of Freedoms Act, Parking Eye should now cease corresponding with the me or risk action for breach of the Data Protection Act for not adhering to the terms of their Keeper of a Vehicle at the Date of an Event contract.

Regards

 

We received a reply denying our appeal (letter attached)

- but from what I've read on other posts, this is their normal course of action.

 

 

Still, it doesn't make any sense that they should deny the appeal given that, as ericsbrother has said, their original invoice is riddled with mistakes and they would obviously lose any further appeals.

 

They have graciously offer to extend the discount period for a further 14 days so that we can pay the reduce amount, which is good of them - not!

 

It appears we now have the option to appeal to POPLA, so my question is, is this the time to do that?

 

Many thanks

letter3.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

they will deny the appeal because their only income is from these dubious invoices and they aren't going to let a little thing like the law stop them from earning a dishonest crust.

Stop wishing to believe that life is fair.

 

You don't have to appeal to POPLA,

you have asserted that they are wrong and you can also just let them write their silly letters and respond in a forthright manner should they actually threaten to take you to court.

 

POPLA used to use proper tribunal panel members but now they use Ombudsman services ltd so the decisions are taken by a random employee with uncertain qualifications and probably none at all in this field.

Your choice

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...