Parking Eye ignoring Landowner request cancellation of parking charge

[aud147]

For tickets received through the post (Notice to Keeper) please answer the following questions.

 

1) Date of the infringement: 20/05/2016

2) Date on the NTK: 27/05/2016

 

3) Date received: 30/06/2016

4) Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? Yes

“On the 20 May 2016 vehicle ‘reg correct’ entered the Marriott Huntington car park at 11:18:00

and departed at 13:36:24 on the 20 May 2016

 

May 2016.

The signage, which is clearly displayed at the entrance to and throughout the car park,

states that this is private land, the car park is managed by Parking Eye Ltd,

as a permit only / paid parking car park,

 

 

what parking tariffs apply and the parking charge applicable without the appropriate permit

or payment of the appropriate tariff when parking, along with other terms and conditions of the car park

by which those who park in the car park agree to be bound.

 

By either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or parking without a valid permit,

in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the signage,

the Parking Charge is now payable to Parking Eye Ltd (as the Creditor).

 

You are notified under paragraph 9(2) (b) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

that the driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay this parking charge in full.

 

 

As we do not know the driver's name or current postal address,

if you were not the driver at the time,

you should tell us the name and current postal address of the driver and pass this notice to them.

 

You are warned that if, after 29 days from the date given

(which is presumed to be the second working day after the Date Issued)

the parking charge has not been paid in full and we do not know both the name and current address of the driver,

we have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from you.

 

 

This warning is given to you under paragraph 9 (2) (f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

and subject to our complying with the applicable conditions under Schedule 4 of that Act.

 

Should you provide an incorrect address for service,

we will pursue you for any Parking Charge amount that remains unpaid.

 

Should you identify someone who denies they were the driver,

we will pursue you for any Parking Charge amount that remains unpaid”

 

5) Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Yes

6) Have you appealed?

Not directly to Parking Eye.

I contacted the owner of the land Marriott Hotels on the 08/06/2016

and they contacted Parking Eye confirming I was a guest at a meeting

and requested the charge be cancelled.

 

 

Have you had a response? No

7 Who is the parking company? Parking Eye

For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under: Independent Appeals Service (POPLA)

If you have received any other correspondence, please mention it here

 

I received a further notice from Parking Eye on the 30th June

stating the charge had now gone from £65 up to £100.

And I had/have 14 days to pay it from the 30th June I assume.

 

The Marriott Hotel advised me I didn’t need to contact Parking Eye as they would deal with it.

After the second letter I contacted the Marriott again

and they again emailed Parking Eye asking them to cancel the parking ticket.

 

I am seeking advice on whether I should contact Parking Eye directly,

what have other people experienced when the landowner attempts to cancel the parking charge?

 

I am in the wrong in terms of the parking ticket I missed the multiple signs

(new arrangement with Parking Eye and I just didn’t realise)

 

Thank you for your assistance.

Audrey

[BankFodder]

I don't think that Parking Eye is obliged to cancel a ticket merely on the request of their client. Of course, they are stupid and then not helping a decent relationship but that is typical of Parking Eye. A few years ago, Somerfield's tried to bring to an end the arrangement with Parking Eye altogether and there was a court case in which Somerfield's lost and had to pay Parking Eye a fair amount of damages. I think that it was during this case that the court commented that parking eye were deceptive and dishonest – although apparently not intentionally so. How one manages that, I have never understood.

 

Of course, companies like Somerfield's, Marriot et cetera, they want their names kept out of it. They don't want to be seen going to war with their own customers. It's a bit like extraordinary rendition. You fly people off to other countries which do practice torture and then you let them get on with it but you don't get involved with it yourself.

 

I would suggest that the way forward on this is to keep Marriot is closely involved as possible – because they really won't like it. It will help to stir it up between Marriot and parking eye.

 

I would suggest that you send a letter to parking eye and copy it to Marriot and tell parking eye that you are not prepared to pay. You don't think that they have the authority to bring any action in their own name and also that

the sum demanded is unfair. Tell them also that in view of their own client wishing the matter to be dropped, that if they decide to sue you, that you will join Marriot as a second defendant in the case so that you will make sure that their own client is fully involved as a party to the litigation. Only say this to parking eye if you intend to do this – but it would be fairly straightforward. The Marriot will certainly not want to find themselves in court as a defendant in this matter but it would be extremely funny, wouldn't it, if parking eye then found themselves obliged to be involved in litigation with their own client.

 

As well as the copy to Marriot, send Marriot their own letter – separately and tell them that you are now facing legal action from parking eye and the if papers are issued then you will be joining them – Marriot – in the action.

[aud147]

Hi,

Thanks for your response. I figured they don't have to cancel.

Does it count as an appeal, if the contact is from the landowner and not me?

 

Thanks again

Audrey

[dx100uk]

appeal anyway

your dog who stayed at the hotel got up late

or any reason you like.

 

 

you need the POPLA code from them.

 

 

dx

[dx100uk]

are the hotel the land owner ...have you actually checked this?

 

 

dx

[ericsbrother]

a brief appeal/letter to PE stating that you were informed that Marriotts had instructed them to cancel this charge and if this isnt happening please explain why not. Copy to Marriotts.

Do not rerly on email, send proper letters in the post, they are harder to ignore

[aud147]

Hi

@ dx100uk - no I haven't checked they own the land

 

Will send a letter as you advise and cc hotel in and also request the POPLA code.

 

Thanks for all you're help

Audrey