Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Northmonk forget what I said about your Notice to Hirer being the best I have seen . Though it  still may be  it is not good enough to comply with PoFA. Before looking at the NTH, we can look at the original Notice to Keeper. That is not compliant. First the period of parking as sated on their PCN is not actually the period of parking but a misstatement  since it is only the arrival and departure times of your vehicle. The parking period  is exactly that -ie the time youwere actually parked in a parking spot.  If you have to drive around to find a place to park the act of driving means that you couldn't have been parked at the same time. Likewise when you left the parking place and drove to the exit that could not be describes as parking either. So the first fail is  failing to specify the parking period. Section9 [2][a] In S9[2][f] the Act states  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN fails to mention the words in parentheses despite Section 9 [2]starting by saying "The notice must—..." As the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the Act,  it follows that the Notice to Hirer cannot be pursued as they couldn't get the NTH compliant. Even if the the NTH was adjudged  as not  being affected by the non compliance of the NTK, the Notice to Hirer is itself not compliant with the Act. Once again the PCN fails to get the parking period correct. That alone is enough to have the claim dismissed as the PCN fails to comply with PoFA. Second S14 [5] states " (5)The notice to Hirer must— (a)inform the hirer that by virtue of this paragraph any unpaid parking charges (being parking charges specified in the notice to keeper) may be recovered from the hirer; ON their NTH , NPE claim "The driver of the above vehicle is liable ........" when the driver is not liable at all, only the hirer is liable. The driver and the hirer may be different people, but with a NTH, only the hirer is liable so to demand the driver pay the charge  fails to comply with PoFA and so the NPE claim must fail. I seem to remember that you have confirmed you received a copy of the original PCN sent to  the Hire company plus copies of the contract you have with the Hire company and the agreement that you are responsible for breaches of the Law etc. If not then you can add those fails too.
    • Weaknesses in some banks' security measures for online and mobile banking could leave customers more exposed to scammers, new data from Which? reveals.View the full article
    • I understand what you mean. But consider that part of the problem, and the frustration of those trying to help, is the way that questions are asked without context and without straight facts. A lot of effort was wasted discussing as a consumer issue before it was mentioned that the property was BTL. I don't think we have your history with this property. Were you the freehold owner prior to this split? Did you buy the leasehold of one half? From a family member? How was that funded (earlier loan?). How long ago was it split? Have either of the leasehold halves changed hands since? I'm wondering if the split and the leashold/freehold arrangements were set up in a way that was OK when everyone was everyone was connected. But a way that makes the leasehold virtually unsaleable to an unrelated party.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Parking Eye PCN - Stevenage Swimming Centre, SG1 1XY ***Resolved***


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 395 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

Mrs P received a PCN from Parking Eye, dated 14/03/2023 for £80 (reduced to £40 if paid within 14 days of date issued) as a result of using a car park at the local swimming centre.

 

The cause for issuing the PCN appears to be alleged that the registration was not entered on a terminal at the reception.  This terminal is customer operated.

 

Mrs P did use the car park at the date/time stated, however she did use the electronic terminal (as she did the previous week) and also physically signed in (a book) as a spectator for a school swimming session (to see our little penguin swimming).

 

She contacted Parking Eye to tell them of these facts..

 

Parking Eye rejected this information citing:

 

"We have reviewed the details outlined in your appeal, but we are not in receipt of sufficient evidence to confirm that the terms and conditions were not breached. The signage located at the above car park instructs motorists to enter their full, correct vehicle registration into the payment machine or terminal on site. After reviewing our records, we are unable to locate any vehicle details that match your vehicle registration. We believe this is due to either a major keying error taking place, or no vehicle registration details being entered at all....

 

...We are writing to advise you that your recent appeal has been unsuccessful and that you have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure"

 

They do however go on to mention PCN operators incurring fees and processing costs where registration numbers not being entered etc and then finish with:

 

"In light of this and as a gesture of goodwill, we would like to offer you the opportunity to make a discounted payment of £20.00"

 

It feels like Parking Eye know that this PCN is not enforceable (why offer a further reduced PCN) but are not prepared to write it off due to their costs?

 

Any advise on next steps?  Parking Eye have stated this is the end of their appeals process but we're not prepared to cover their 'admin costs' for a PCN issued due to their terminal not working as opposed to a 'mistake' that we don't believe occurred Further more, Mrs P was a patron of the facilities.

 

Hoping someone can help! 

 

Mr P

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good old parking lie, and their GOGW offer!!!!

 

Pay them nothing.

 

Contact the sports centre or venue and tell them to have this invoice cancelled.

 

They always turn down appeals which is why it isn't recommended you appeal their silly little invoices.

  • Thanks 1

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mrs P just contacted the Swimming Centre who gave us an email address of a person to write to including all the details of the event.

 

Subsequently we've sent an email to that person and now awaiting a reply!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent, wait and see what the outcome will be, that was to someone from the swimming pool wasn't it?

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

We spoke to someone from the Swimming Centre who gave us details of someone who works for the organisation that manage the centre plus other local services like gyms, golf, parks etc.  Not sure if that person works at the Swimming Centre (its Stevenage Leisure Limited)

 

WWW.SLL.CO.UK

SLL offers 25 leisure and cultural facilities across the UK. We provide gyms, pools, theatres, golf and wellbeing centres.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

please complete this:

 

 

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

Does Mrs P. have access to another car that she might have entered that registration rather than the one she was driving that day. Also is it free to park there if you enter your reg. number and is there a time limit when visiting the pool.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please answer the following questions. Apologies in advance regards the answers as the original paperwork has gone missing, I will endeavour to try to find this and edit the responses below where possible.

 

1 Date of the infringement 9th March 2023

 

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 14th March 2023
 

3 Date received [TBC but within 14 days event]
 

4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?] [TBC]
 

5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? YES
 

6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] [confirmed presence as a patron the Swimming Centre at the date/time of event.  Advised that a physical guest book was signed in to.  Advised that the car registration was entered in to an electronic terminal to record vehicle]
 

Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up [response did not acknowledge either the guest book entry or use of the electronic terminal.  The response suggested that the vehicle registration was not entered correctly]
 

7 Who is the parking company? [Parking Eye]

 

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Stevenage Swimming Centre, SG1 1XY

 

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

 

On 23/03/2023 at 13:54, lookinforinfo said:

Does Mrs P. have access to another car that she might have entered that registration rather than the one she was driving that day. Also is it free to park there if you enter your reg. number and is there a time limit when visiting the pool.

 

We have 1 car in the house hold.

 

There is a time limit I believe of up to 2 hours but she was there 1hr 5mins

 

After contacting the SLL, as mentioned above, we received a generic reply from the contact name we were given that quoted and reiterated the need to enter reg number correctly and in full. 

 

No acknowledgement of the points we made that we had used the terminal.

 

I find that quite point quite contentious as someone who works in tech and software, I know how glitchy software can be!

 

The generic response closed with advisory not to contact Parking Eye and a link to check on the progress of the PCN.

 

After checking the PCN details on the Parking Eye website the following day, the balance showed as zero.

 

We received on Friday a letter form Parking Eye confirming that the change was 'cancelled' :-)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Parking Eye PCN - Stevenage Swimming Centre, SG1 1XY

So this is resolved?

 

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

  • AndyOrch changed the title to Parking Eye PCN - Stevenage Swimming Centre, SG1 1XY ***Resolved***
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...