kirkbylad Posted April 29, 2014 Author Share Posted April 29, 2014 (edited) I've got a PCN for parking in the same place. We were at the Sette Colli restaurant across the road. I was in the process of appealing but I think I'm going to try and negotiate. ParkingEye have taken me to court. I downloaded the parking prankster guide and got some advice from kirkbylad, but to be honest, it's a minefield. If you haven't got hours to spare reading the guide and trying to make sense of what's what, I'd just pay the fine, or try to negotiate. kirkbylad helped me for a while, but as soon as I mentioned that I wanted to negotiate out of court, he told me he didn't have time to help me with the negotiation process (don't know why, he was helpful up to that point!). I went on legal beagles forum and they were very helpful!! Good luck with whatever you decide! Let me correct that for you, I advised you what you needed to do, you stated from the off you were wanting to settle with no intention of going to a hearing. You had the pranksters guide which told you what you needed to do in case of negotiation, and you were determined to not go to a hearing from the outset. And yes I am far to busy to advise people on how to start their emails to Parking eye, that should be a fairly simple task. I wonder if you have actually managed to get Parking eye to £50.00 or less..... anything more and you have been had ---------- Post added 29-04-2014 at 22:54 ---------- No it isn't. Go to http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4816822 and read and understand. It isn't all that complicated from where you are at. Wait for the Notice to Keeper - NTK; appeal and ask for a POPLA reference. Send in an appeal stating GPEOL (in the link I gave you above) and they will - they may not even bother with POPLA once you have submitted your defence. Good luck and don't pay. Be careful if this is Highview They are now going down the contractual sum route with some new signs, so if this is a new site, it could be well be one of them GPEOL wont wash with the contractual sum model Edited April 29, 2014 by kirkbylad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonzo77 Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Let me correct that for you, I advised you what you needed to do, you stated from the off you were wanting to settle with no intention of going to a hearing. You had the pranksters guide which told you what you needed to do in case of negotiation, and you were determined to not go to a hearing from the outset. And yes I am far to busy to advise people on how to start their emails to Parking eye, that should be a fairly simple task. I wonder if you have actually managed to get Parking eye to £50.00 or less..... anything more and you have been had. I didn't say your advice was poor. I think your advice was useful and I thanked you for it. I never asked you how to word any emails to PE. I asked you about the negotiations process because it doesn't tell you where to start in the guide. You've just mentioned in this post that the email needs to go to PE, which is more than you said in your email to me?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirkbylad Posted April 29, 2014 Author Share Posted April 29, 2014 Indeed if your negotiating without prejudice save as to costs one would contact parking eye directly. Enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonzo77 Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Indeed if your negotiating without prejudice save as to costs one would contact parking eye directly. Enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk I appreciate your help Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phawley Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 Seems like we are paying out to these clowns in more ways than one. Taken from Cosumer action group website. Quote [Taxpayers are spending up to £600,000 a year to subsidise the cost of private parking firms getting drivers’ details from the DVLA so they can charge motorists. And that total subsidy pot may have topped £5million over the last eight years. New figures obtained from a Freedom of Information request reveal that the DVLA loses 34p every time a parking company applies for the details of a car’s registered keeper. The subsidy arises because the private firms pay £2.50 for documentation, which costs the DVLA £2.84 to handle. This year the agency has received 1.8million applications from private companies, costing the public purse around £612,000.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikes10 Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 The Crosspool Tavern are to introduce car parking charges, it would be nice to know what its costing them, its going to be managed by Local Parking Security (LPS), they have lots of clever kit on their website, you can get a "Pay and Display" machine for £3474.00. http://crosspool.info/2014/04/30/crosspool-tavern-to-introduce-pay-and-display-parking/ http://www.localparkingsecurity.co.uk/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasd75 Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 They are now going down the contractual sum route with some new signs, so if this is a new site, it could be well be one of them GPEOL wont wash with the contractual sum model @Kirkbylad - would you be able to explain what this means (the 'contractual sum' model) and why GPEOL wouldn't work please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 The point is, they rip you off. They send you a 'fine' (AKA invoice) for silly amounts like £80 for overstaying by 10/20mins in a free car park?! That's unlawful. Its not though. Morally wrong, yes. I'd be first to sign or support any campaign to give more grace. But I've no time for people who can't be bothered to read the signs, or claim they can't see them or park in two bays or on pavements. Is there any suitable alternative to them though, without the hassle and expense of fitting barriers and pay machines? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonzo77 Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 Its not though. Morally wrong, yes. I'd be first to sign or support any campaign to give more grace. But I've no time for people who can't be bothered to read the signs, or claim they can't see them or park in two bays or on pavements. Is there any suitable alternative to them though, without the hassle and expense of fitting barriers and pay machines? Just fit a pay machine. If it's £1 per hour and you over stay by 30mins, you should be invoiced 50p, etc. Private companies shouldn't be able to get away with charging £80 for a 10 minute overstay on a free carpark. That's not a true representation of loss. Think about it, why would companies such as ParkingEye go to the expense of fitting a carpark out with CCTV and signage, if they expected their 'deterrent' to work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penistone999 Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 Its not though. Morally wrong, yes. I'd be first to sign or support any campaign to give more grace. But I've no time for people who can't be bothered to read the signs, or claim they can't see them or park in two bays or on pavements. Is there any suitable alternative to them though, without the hassle and expense of fitting barriers and pay machines? The expense of barriers and pay machines will quickly be recovered with money made from the parking. ---------- Post added 30-04-2014 at 13:46 ---------- Just fit a pay machine. If it's £1 per hour and you over stay by 30mins, you should be invoiced 50p, etc. Private companies shouldn't be able to get away with charging £80 for a 10 minute overstay on a free carpark. That's not a true representation of loss. Think about it, why would companies such as ParkingEye go to the expense of fitting a carpark out with CCTV and signage, if they expected their 'deterrent' to work? A lot of these companies apparently pay the landowner for the privilege of "Managing " the car parks. Now why would they do that if they wernt only interested in making as much money as possible through scam invoices. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts