It's been around 8 weeks since my appeal was turned down from POPLA and I have been expecting some letters from either parking eye, their debt collectors or court papers. To date I have heard nothing. Do you think they have forgotten about me, or am I just being too hopeful?

Less than 15 minutes over - and the overstay wasnt actually my fault as I was ready to leave well before hand but couldn't. Both parkingeye and POPLA rejected my reason for overstaying - but that's I believe because POPLA dont really deal with mitigating circumstances.

Thanks, I'll take a read of that Just want to make sure I have as full a defence as possible against this mob.

I'm expecting court papers from ParkingEye shortly and will be submitting a defence based around them not being the landowner, not a true pre-estiamate of cost etc as well as a mitigating circumstance (the mitiaging circumstance wont hold much weight in law, but may help get some sympathy). I was however wondering about a further line of defence and that is the definition of parking. ANPR records when you enter the site and exit the site and parkingeye issue a ticket based on the differance between the 2. However at the point of entry and point of exist you arent actually parked as the car is in motion. You could in principle spend x amount of time driving around looking for parking. Would the fact that the car is not parked when the entry and exit photos are taken and that the contract stipulates '2 hours free parking' hold any weight in law?

Like they did with somerfield when they tried to get out of the contract as they realised it was a massive mistake to get involved with parkingeye.

After asking if they gave ParkingEye authority to raise claims on there behalf as landowners I got the following response from Aldi. "Court proceedings would be started by ParkingEye as they manage the car parks. It would not be on behalf of Aldias we do not receive any revenue from these parkingmeasures." As ParkingEye arent the legal landowners and they are unable to start proceeding on behalf of Aldi I can't really see why they think they have a leg to stand on. Also as Aldi get no money from the fines, it cant be argued that it is putting right a loss Aldi has suffered.

Yes they are the legal landowners - but say the contract is between me and ParkingEye. The carpark is actually owned by Aldi, but it is required to provide 2 hours free parking to local shoppers. I have asked them if they have given ParkingEye authorisation to raise legal proceeding on behalf of Aldi, as if they havent then ParkingEye cant follow it up anyway and they arent the legal landowners.

Aldi seem less interested than ParkingEye:- "I am sorry to hear that your appeal has been unsuccessful. At customer serviceswe unfortunately don't have the authority to challenge Parking Eye, we don'teven have contact with them."

Yeah I know that now - I suppose its a lesson learned. I thought I would take the approach to of detailing what actually happened but unfortunately it doesn't seem to have worked in the appeals process.

Hi There, I was wondering what further action I can take against what I regard as an unfair parking charge issued by parkingeye, or if I should just pay up. In summary, I was parked at an Aldi car park for 2hours 14 minutes when it was 2 hours free parking. I had returned well before the 2 hour time limit but was unable to get into my car as some idiot had parked that close I couldnt get into the drivers side. So I went into Aldi and told them what was going on, which they basically said there was nothing they could do as it was a car park for local shoppers and would have to wait for them to return. A few days later I got a ANPR parking ticket, so I appealed to ParkingEye rejected the appeal and so it went off to POPLA who also rejected the appeal with the following reason "Considering carefully, all the evidence before me, I find that there is clear signage displayed at the site to inform motorists of the 2 hour maximum stay. Therefore, I find that by parking at the site for longer than the maximum stay the appellant breached the terms and conditions of using the site. I also find that if the appellant was unable to leave the site within the 2 hours prescribed, they should have contacted the operator as their contact number is provided on the signage displayed at the site. I find that the appellant’s case is that of mitigation which does not form a valid ground to allow this appeal." The rejection reason seems to ignore the fact I told the landowners and presume I had a mobile phone with me. Should I just bite the bullet and payup even though I still regard the ticket as unfair? I'm wary of extra costs etc should it end up going to court if I lose. Paul