Show Posts - marcogolfo

Just a quick update to let you all know that Lidl intervened and got the ticket cancelled.Thank you all for your help.

Quote from: jfollows on 23 Sep, 2025 09:30The forum has numerous cases where contacting LIDL customer services gets these cancelled, just search the forum. I will contact Lidl, thank you for your help

Quote from: DWMB2 on 23 Sep, 2025 08:06Quote from: marcogolfo on 23 Sep, 2025 01:58No replies? Be patient and do not 'bump' threads. This is a busy forum run entirely by volunteers helping you for free, and not receiving a reply within 10 hours is not a sign that you will not receive one at all.Sincerest apologies

Quote from: RichardW on 23 Sep, 2025 07:41Please post the PCN.Was your address incorrect on the V5C at the time?  Is it still wrong?By this do you mean the ref number? The address on the V5C was wrong at the time - I was in the middle of a house move and this has since been updated. Thank you for replying

No replies?

Hi,The registered keeper received a Parking Eye Charge Notice for an alleged overstay of 13 minutes on a date that is over a year ago August 2024. The letter states that they wrote to the driver at an old address at the time and I didn't receive a reply but that they have since contacted a credit reference agency to obtain th address and details of the registered keeper. They are now offering a reduced amount of £45 if paid in 14 days. On the date in question it's believed that the driver was a customer shopping at Lidl and bank transaction details verify this but show that the money came out of the alleged driver's account on the day after the alleged parking offence. A couple of questions come to mind:As the registered keeper, do I need to contact Parking Eye at all?Would they be willing to accept that the alleged driver of the vehicle was shopping in the store given that the transaction details say the date after the alleged offence? Due to it being over a year ago, there is limited information about the bank transaction details of the alleged driver i.e. it doesn't explicitly define that the money came out of the bank on the date of the alleged offence.Please help.Thanks

Quote from: DWMB2 on 15 Jul, 2025 15:13Quote from: b789 on 23 Jun, 2025 11:15Come back when you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC).OK, thank you

Quick update:I've notified them of my address and this has been updated.I have received the first letter from them notifying me that no payment has been received within 30 days of the POPLA decision and that the amount has increased to £170 - should I reply to this?

Thank you for taking the time to reply. I just wanted to ask, should I get in touch with them to make sure they have my most recent address, seeing as the original PCN was sent to my old address, or ignore and wait?

Hi, I hope someone can help me with this.I've received a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) from Group Nexus for overstaying by 16 minutes at a service station. Unfortunately, the notice was originally sent to my old address, but my ex-wife kindly forwarded it on to me. My DVLA details have since been updated.On the day in question, we were visiting a local wildlife centre and were looking for a place to stop for coffee. Our sat nav directed us to the service station, and we entered via the back service road. We're actually regular visitors to this location, although we don’t usually stay longer than 20 minutes.There were signs in place, which they’ve submitted as part of their evidence, but we didn’t notice them at the time – likely because it’s never been an issue before and our visits are usually brief. On this particular day, however, the café was very busy with long queues. I’m autistic and my partner has formal diagnoses of both autism and ADHD, which makes time management more difficult for us.I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and did submit an appeal, but it was rejected on the grounds that the signage was clear. I then escalated the matter to POPLA, but they also rejected the appeal, citing the overstay.As part of both appeals, I provided receipts to show we had made purchases at the service station. I also contacted MOTO directly, as their website states that it’s not their intention to penalise customers for minor overstays. They responded to say they weren’t able to make any changes from their end.This all feels incredibly unfair. We were genuine customers using the facilities, completely unaware we had overstayed by such a small margin.I’ve attached the POPLA decision details below. If you’re able to offer any advice or let me know if there’s anything further I can do, I would really appreciate it.Thank you so much.Assessor summary of operator caseThe parking operator issued the parking charge notice (PCN) for vehicle remained on site for longer than the free period.Assessor summary of your caseThe appellant raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • They were a genuine customer of Moto and has proof of purchases. • They say the overstay was 16 minutes and had they been aware of the overstay they would have paid. • They say the charge is disproportionate, unfair and no genuine loss to the landowner. • Moto’s website states it does not intend to charge for marginal overstays. They also emailed Moto who advised they could not cancel the PCN. • They and their partner are neurodivergent, they have autism and their partner has ADHD. They both have difficulties with time management. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant has reiterated their grounds of appeal and has expanded on their grounds of appeal regarding being neurodivergent. In support of their appeal, the appellant submitted the following: 1. Proof of purchases 2. Copy of email from Moto This evidence has been considered in making my determination.Assessor supporting rational for decisionWhen assessing an appeal, POPLA considers if the parking operator issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park on the day. The parking operator provided evidence of the signs on the car park, which advise that a £100 PCN will be issued to drivers who stay longer than 2 hours and do not make payment. The operator has provided a copy of their automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) images which show the vehicle entering at 16:20, exiting at 18:36 and was on site for a total duration of 2 hours and 16 minutes. This demonstrates that the vehicle was on site 16 minutes longer than the 2 hour free stay allowed. The operator has provided a copy of their payment report which shows that no payment was made. This demonstrates that the vehicle was not authorised to park for the extra 16 minutes that it was on site for after the 2-hour free period had ended. I acknowledge that the appellant was not aware that they had overstay. I acknowledge also that both the appellant and their partner are neurodivergent and have difficulty with time management. When looking at appeals, POPLA can only consider if the PCN has been issued correctly in line with the terms and conditions of the site in question. POPLA cannot allow an appeal based on mitigating circumstances alone. Whilst I acknowledge the appellant’s grounds of appeal when parking on a private car park the driver enters into a contract with the operator. The terms and conditions of this contract are displayed on the signage throughout the car park. When entering a private land car park, the operator gives a motorist 5 minutes from entering the car park, to park, read the terms and conditions displayed within the signage, decide if they can comply with them and leave if they cannot without incurring a PCN. Where a motorist chooses to remain in the car park or makes use of the car park facility provided by the operator, then the motorist is deemed to have accepted the contract offered within the signage at the site. In this case the appellant agreed to make payment if they stay longer than 2 hours. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 5.2 of the Single Code of Practice requires a parking operator to allow a grace period in addition to the parking period. The Code advises that grace periods do not apply other than where a driver has parked in compliance with the terms and conditions of the area, nor is a grace period a free period of parking. The Code tells operators that they must allow a grace period of 10 minutes. The ANPR images show that the vehicle was on site for 2 hours and 16 minutes, 16 minutes longer than the 2-hour free stay allowed. I am satisfied, therefore, that the operator has consider the grace period prior to issuing the PCN and has complied with section 5.2 of the Code. The operator has also shown via their payment report that payment wasn’t made for the extra 16 minutes the vehicle remained on site for. I understand that the appellant was a genuine customer of Moto and that they have provided proof of purchases, however, it must be noted that there is nothing within the terms and conditions which allows a motorist to stay longer than the 2 hours without making payment if they spend at the site. I acknowledge that the overstay was 16 minutes and had the appellant been aware they would have made payment, however, the fact remains that they did overstay and did not make payment and have breached the agreed contract. I acknowledge that the appellant says that the Moto website states it does not intend to charge for marginal overstays and that the appellant has provided a copy of their email contact with Moto. The contract the appellant formed when parking on the site was with the parking operator via the terms and condition shown in the signage and not with Moto. Any comments and assurances made by a third party due not overrule the terms and conditions which are set out on the signs. I note that in their comments the appellant has referred to section F.3 of the Code in relation to illness or disability. It must be noted that section F.3 refers to delays caused by sudden onset of illness. It does not reference illness or disability in general. Whilst I acknowledge the appellant has explained that both themselves and their partner are neurodivergent, they have not provided any details of a sudden onset of illness which caused a delay to them leaving the site within the 2 hours allowed. As such, I do not feel that annex F3 would be applicable in this case. I note also that the appellant has referred to the Equality Act 2010. The Equality Act 2010 says that providers of services to the public must make ‘reasonable adjustments’ to remove barriers which may discriminate. In my view the operator issued the PCN solely on the basis that the appellant remained on site for longer than the 2-hour free period without making payment. In this instance I am satisfied that the operator issued the PCN accordingly, as they would with any motorist. I acknowledge that the appellant says that the charge is disproportionate, unfair and no genuine loss to the landowner. The appeal reasons raised have led me to consider the relevant case law of ParkingEye v Beavis. The Supreme Court considered private parking charges in a high-profile case, ParkingEye v Beavis. The Court recognised that parking charges have all the characteristics of a contractual penalty, but nevertheless were enforceable because there were legitimate interests in the charging of overstaying motorists. It concluded that a charge in the region of £85 was proportionate, and it attached importance to the fact that the charge was prominently displayed in large lettering on the signage itself. While the specific facts of the case concerned a free-stay car park where the motorist had overstayed, I consider the principles that lie behind the decision remain the same. Taking these principles into account, I am not going to consider whether the loss is a genuine pre-estimate of loss or whether it reflects a correct loss to the landowner. Rather, I am going to consider the charge amount in the appellant’s case, as well as the legibility of the signage. After reviewing the signage provided by the operator, I am satisfied that the signage is legible, and the charge amount is in the region of £85 and therefore allowable. The Court’s full judgement in the case is available online should the appellant want to read it. In my view the operator issued the PCN solely on the basis that the appellant remained on site without making a valid payment. In this instance I am satisfied that the operator issued the PCN accordingly, as they would with any motorist. After considering the evidence from both parties, the motorist remained on site for longer than the free period without making payment and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. As such, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly and I must refuse the appeal. POPLA is not involved with the financial aspect of the parking charge. For any queries regarding payments, the appellant will need to contact the parking operator directly.