3. Messages

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - hirohamster

Pages: [1]
1
Private parking tickets / Re: Parking Eye Parking Charge Notice - Appealed, half-ignored, Basingstoke Holiday Inn
« on: June 21, 2024, 03:57:42 pm »
Quote from: b789 on June 21, 2024, 03:32:33 pm
Without seeing the NtK, we cannot know whether they issued you with a PoFA compliant PCN. It is only in very rare cases that PE don't issue PoFA compliant NtKs.

What you need to understand is that PE will care not one iota about your "mitigating" circumstances. All they want is their money.

In all circumstances the unknown driver is always liable for the charge. The known keeper is under no legal obligation to identify who was driving. However, if the NtK is fully compliant with the requirements of PoFA, PE can transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known keeper.

So, is the NtK PoFA compliant or not? Of course PE are asking for the drivers details, but if they don't get them, they will just chase the known keeper unless you have a "golden ticket" PCN. Show us.

If PE reject that appeal, the keeper can then appeal to POPLA but again, they will not consider any mitigation. They will only look at relevant law and BPA Code of Practice (CoP) breaches to see f the PCN was issued correctly.

Based on what you have told us so far, the PCN was issued correctly as the driver failed to enter the VRM into the keypad at reception. The only argument the keeper can probably use is that it is not prominent on any signage that it is a requirement to do so in order to not receive a PCN.

Hello there, thank you for taking the time to review my issue! Although I have to apologise - I'm not certain what the acronyms NtK or PoFA reflect. Are you able to tell me? Without it, I don't think I understand a lot of your content, and it looks like you know what you're talking about so I'm keen to understand!

Also, with the mitigating circumstances, surely they would consider these. In the event I hold my ground and they take it to court, the same mitigating circumstances would be taken into account in the context of unreasonable application of the parking charge notice. So to acknowledge evidence at the earliest point, would reduce the risk of putting resources up in bringing it to court. Would that not be the case?

2
Private parking tickets / Parking Eye Parking Charge Notice - Appealed, half-ignored, Basingstoke Holiday Inn
« on: June 21, 2024, 01:04:59 pm »
Hello all,

This is a real small-time issue, but I'd really like some third-party advice. The scenario is simple, I had a medical issue which prevented me from driving my registered car, so a friend drove my car instead (which is legal per both our respective car insurance policy terms and conditions). We drove into a car park managed by Parking Eye because the medical issue escalated and I needed to use facilities urgently. We parked up, I went inside, explained my issue to the hotel staff who directed me to their facilities. The car remained parked for 30 minutes, hence the parking charge notice.

In my appeal (thank you Martin Lewis for the template), I outlined the two mitigating circumstances; 1) that I was not the driver, and 2) there was a legitimate medical emergency which is sourced from emergency surgery 11 years ago. I supplied all evidence, including location data. I even highlighted the terms and conditions that state medical emergencies may constitute mitigating circumstances - as I believe they did in this scenario.

As you can expect, the appeal was responded-to, and the only thing they latched onto was "you need to tell us the name of the driver, otherwise we will correspond with you after 28 days of not telling us."

So I've got two options;
1) Tell them the details of the driver (which I don't need to do, and frankly don't want to as they were assisting me out of good faith), who will then remind them of the medical emergency, and Parking Eye can then deliver an actual verdict on the full appeal. Or,
2) Wait 28 days, they come back to me and I remind them of the medical emergency, and Parking Eye can then deliver an actual verdict on the full appeal.
Both options include telling them information already held by them, but which they've ignored to deliberately obstruct a smooth appeal process, pressuring me more to pay up. Moreover, they won't have correspondence with me now, as they've said "We can only deal with the driver" without telling me how I can actually give them this information.

I just want them to deliver verdict on the medical emergency mitigating circumstances, and I'm clueless how to initiate this.

What can I reasonably do here? I just want Parking Eye to recognise and respond to the full appeal, as opposed to only acknowledging and responding to the only part they're able to challenge. My concern is that waiting 28 days for it to roll-over will increase the fine. I've been in contact with them to try and resolve this, but they never address the actual concern, simply saying "Appeal again" which will yield the same response, "Tell us you were the driver" which is them suggesting that I lie in order to get control of an appeal that I rightfully have in my name, or "Tell us the name of the driver" without giving me the capacity to do so. It's full of incomplete processes and I feel very lost.

Any advice is welcomed, even if it's not Parking Eye-related. Thank you!

Pages: [1]