Hi guys my in laws has received a Pcn from parking eye. She has ignored the 1st letter and as received another 1 now stating she owes £100. What do we do now please help.

You should appeal even though u have ignored the first letter.

Pe are very litigatious at the moment

How do we go about that?

Just send parking eye a letter, saying you didn't see any signs for example. Say that if they don't allow ur appeal to send you avcode for popla. When(if) u get it come back here and we will help u put together a winning appeal

Thanks is there a basic template for this letter or do I write one up myself.

Just write one up yourself. You can send a copy on their website to. But deff post one

OK I'll do it later when I finish the dreaded morning shift.

Firstly there is no appeal process - all appeals will be rejected

PE will reject any appeal and should at the same time provide a POPLA number, you can then use that POPLA number to present your appeal to them which must include the request fro a breakdown of costs as you do not beleive they represent their losses as several POPLA appeals have been upheld on this issue alone

Once you have that POPLA appeal in you can sit back and wait for the answer, if it comes back in your favour then great, if it doesn't, then great as well as POLA's decision is only binding on the PPC and not the driver

These PPC invoices are unenforceable and can be ignored although there is a valid alternative of sending the 'breakdown of costs, prove contract, deny liability' letter to cover your arse then sit back and ignore all their begging letters and subsequent debt collector letters - all of which are nothing but hot air.

The only time you really need to react to a PPC is if they issue real, official, stamped and dated court papers, by percentage a small number are sent out to intimidate the weak minded, theer is a standard defence to enter against which the PPC's have not recorded a single win

Also be aware that some PPC's trawl this forum and others giving out conflicting and bad information, indeed it was included as a task in a recent PPC job description that was advertised.

Homer that is not actually true.

Parking eye (and as much as it pains me to say this) are the only company in the business that does seem to cancel a lot of invoices on appeal (genuine shoppers etc, mistyped tickets etc)

Also it may be of interest for people to know that Parking eye seems to be changing the way they respond in Popla appeals and changing the goal posts with regards to genuine pre estimate of loss, using commerical justification.

People are currently working on a rebuttal to Parking eye statements @ POPLA appeals.

Please send me a pm if you have Parking eye Popla appeal and i will send you what ive got so far

Also it may be of interest for people to know that Parking eye seems to be changing the way they respond in Popla appeals and changing the goal posts with regards to genuine pre estimate of loss, using commerical justification.

/QUOTE]

 

Commercial justification? What goalposts have changed?

Hi sorry might have worded that badly.

Basically they are rewording how they address the issue of loss,which includes commercial Justification and they state a certain figure is their "loss"

Hi guys my in laws has received a Pcn from parking eye. She has ignored the 1st letter and as received another 1 now stating she owes £100. What do we do now please help.

I could beg you for £100 ....It does not mean that you owe it ?? when you send your appeal to PE send it by recorded delivery then await rejection and your popla code

 

Basically they are rewording how they address the issue of loss,which includes commercial Justification and they state a certain figure is their "loss"

So this thread is going to end up with PE winning at POPLA due to rewording of the definition of loss?

So this thread is going to end up with PE winning at POPLA due to rewording of the definition of loss?

Why should that be? The argument they are advancing is based on several cases all of which involved (on both sides) substantial, well-funded and well represented companies/organisations that all enjoyed an equality of arms and in which both sides were involved in contract negotiations and were well aware of their terms and had time to consider their dues and responsibilities.

That is hardly comparable with the situation the average OP here finds themselves in. Inevitably these cases involve reasonably large, well-funded organisations that by draconian means seek to impose unilateral contractual terms that are incapable of individual negotiation and in circumstances where it is doubtful, sometimes very doubtful, that a contract has been formed or even offered in the first place. There is very rarely an equality of arms.

Commercial justification is a somewhat euphemistic shorthand for "securing the interests of shareholders". In other words securing shareholders' financial investments and the returns on them. In the cases now being quoted by PE (One of which is the oft-quoted Lordsvale Finance v Bank of Zambia - more usually cited because of the clear definition of "penalty" provided in the judgment) the "commercial justification" was the interests of the shareholders of the parties to the litigation. However, the essential difference with PPC's cases is that the only commercial justification that can apply is that of the contractee's agent - i.e. the PPC - not that of the landowner and the offerer of the contract.

The so-called "modern" view, as PE's topgun would have it, is simply a spin applied to heavily commercial cases and advanced for the purposes of avoiding continued and closer examination of the far more relevant "genuine pre-estimate of lose" argument. That is aside from the fact that in attempting to side-step the argument PE threatens to breach the BPA Ltd's AOS CoP which stipulates that claims must be based on a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

So this thread is going to end up with PE winning at POPLA due to rewording of the definition of loss?

Not at all

Homer that is not actually true.

 

Parking eye (and as much as it pains me to say this) are the only company in the business that does seem to cancel a lot of invoices on appeal (genuine shoppers etc, mistyped tickets etc)

 

Also it may be of interest for people to know that Parking eye seems to be changing the way they respond in Popla appeals and changing the goal posts with regards to genuine pre estimate of loss, using commerical justification.

 

People are currently working on a rebuttal to Parking eye statements @ POPLA appeals.

 

Please send me a pm if you have Parking eye Popla appeal and i will send you what ive got so far

ADMIN PLEASE NOTE THIS POSTER IS ASKING FOR PM's TO BE SENT DIRECT

How much longer are we going to allow misinformation to be given out by this poster?

ADMIN PLEASE NOTE THIS POSTER IS ASKING FOR PM's TO BE SENT DIRECT

 

How much longer are we going to allow misinformation to be given out by this poster?

Homer you are bang on the money as he does on mse, PM's etc.......

Allegedly the same poster or one of his sidekicks accused me of having a split personality to the site team scouse magic / liverpool way, when in fact it is me and my mrs.......not me doing a norman bates impression.....

All information should be kept on a open forum to be discussed so that the op can use that information and make an informed decision.

I hope the site team pick up on this and act accordingly? Lets hope.

Instead of derailing a thread guys, if you have a problem with a poster, dont reply, just hit the report button and let the admins deal with it.

Instead of derailing a thread guys, if you have a problem with a poster, dont reply, just hit the report button and let the admins deal with it.

Yes apologies to the original poster, but the site team really need to sort this out.....Its getting beyond ridiculous..........

Myself & SM were reported for being the same poster when in fact all our details our clear to see in "Successful defence against private parking charge," sticky, where our idenfiable information has not been removed at our request and "Roxburghe / Graham white lose again in court"....You see WE have nothing to hide.............

Please keep on the topic of the OPs issue here.

PMs for are not recommended, especially for the hot topics of the behaviour of PE. In fact I will go stage further and say that the suggested PM route won't now work.

kirkbyinfurnesslad , if you have information that would benefit members, why the cloak and dagger stuff? Post it up for all to see and then it may help everyone.

If anyone would like a discussion thread opened so that you can thrash out differences please start one but it would be best not to allow members threads to be derailed.

I am not going to remove any posts from this thread at the moment and as has been said please use the report button to alert the team to potential problems.

Thanks

Commercial justification is a somewhat euphemistic shorthand for "securing the interests of shareholders". In other words securing shareholders' financial investments and the returns on them. In the cases now being quoted by PE (One of which is the oft-quoted Lordsvale Finance v Bank of Zambia - more usually cited because of the clear definition of "penalty" provided in the judgment) the "commercial justification" was the interests of the shareholders of the parties to the litigation. However, the essential difference with PPC's cases is that the only commercial justification that can apply is that of the contractee's agent - i.e. the PPC - not that of the landowner and the offerer of the contract.

 

The so-called "modern" view, as PE's topgun would have it, is simply a spin applied to heavily commercial cases and advanced for the purposes of avoiding continued and closer examination of the far more relevant "genuine pre-estimate of lose" argument. That is aside from the fact that in attempting to side-step the argument PE threatens to breach the BPA Ltd's AOS CoP which stipulates that claims must be based on a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

So PE are just trying to get their invoices paid using a totally irrelevant argument? The invoice can only be about the land owners genuine loss flowing from any alleged breach can't it?

Ims21 the reason is because the rebuttal to pes new argument has just been worked on. Not cloak and dagger. I am not saying what's been done will be a silver bullet or anything

ADMIN PLEASE NOTE THIS POSTER IS ASKING FOR PM's TO BE SENT DIRECT

 

How much longer are we going to allow misinformation to be given out by this poster?

Homer if you are still of the mistaken belief tht parking don't eye Dont allow any appeals Why don't u do a search of pepipoo/mse?

Don't be a naysayer please. Whilst most appeals are rejected as we know they do allow quite a lot.

As much as we dislike the parking industry the is more then one way to skin a cat

Homer if you are still of the mistaken belief tht parking don't eye Dont allow any appeals Why don't u do a search of pepipoo/mse?

 

Don't be a naysayer please. Whilst most appeals are rejected as we know they do allow quite a lot.

 

As much as we dislike the parking industry the is more then one way to skin a cat

I disagree with almost everything you write, quote or advise, stop taking threads off topic and bog off back to MSE if you love it there so much

I have advised the OP they have the choice of ignoring or appealing and going the POPLA route which then leads to ignoring anyway after the relevent letters have been sent.

That is true and accurate advice borne out by my personal experience and many examples on THIS forum and the OP can make their own mind up how they choose to proceed

PE do not do appeals otherwise they would not present admin running costs of their 'business' as losses

I disagree with almost everything you write, quote or advise, stop taking threads off topic and bog off back to MSE if you love it there so much

 

I have advised the OP they have the choice of ignoring or appealing and going the POPLA route which then leads to ignoring anyway after the relevent letters have been sent.

 

That is true and accurate advice borne out by my personal experience and many examples on THIS forum and the OP can make their own mind up how they choose to proceed

 

PE do not do appeals otherwise they would not present admin running costs of their 'business' as losses

Homer you are a star !! I fully agree with you, the public browse sites for assistance into individual matters, and can weigh up the advice to either pay up, appeal or go to court..

The person you describe makes a habbit of hijacking threads, slating people off, then private messages the op to offer his services......something I think is suspect and unhelpful to an open forum.......

Over the road, I put questions to an ex employment solicitor, valid questions to which there was no reply but an onslaught from the clique !!!!!!!

Thank heavens for CAG

We need to keep to the OP's concerns and requirements and ignore this Mr Ben like character

Best wishes Sir!