Parking Eye Montgomery Square Rotherham Information.

[Bazooka Boo]

Just assisting an oppo with an invoice his son has managed to collect from PE at 74 Montgomery Square Rotherham.

 

Now having had a look on google maps at the site, things don't look good at all for PE, in fact the lack of signage in the whole of the car park, not least any signage at the entrance it's a wonder if they will chance their arm in court for fear of being laughed at by the DJ....

 

I have told him to ignore everything EXCEPT a claim form, although he isn't really willing to give them this option as he's very busy and would rather nip this in the bud now, without identifying the driver using ''the registered keeper'' on any correspondence he sends, he simply wants to use their appeals con, then when it automatically gets refused appeal to POPLA outlini9ng the lack of signage and offer of contract.

 

Any thoughts on this method of attack?

 

P.S. Spoke to the wife earlier who tells me I have another speculative invoice waiting for me at home when I get back.......can't wait!

[FTMDave]

You gave him the right advice.

 

It's understandable he wants to nip it in the bud, but as you know it doesn't work like that.

 

He could go down the POPLA route, but had better be very careful and had better be prepared to be disappointed.

 

Google Maps can be well out of date so get him to go back and take photos of the signage (or lack of), and get him to fill this in please

Happy invoice reading later

 

[Bazooka Boo]

OK, happy weekend everyone!!!!

 

My oppo has received this today.....told him not to be worried by it and to try and get some photos of the entrance and any signage he can find.

 

 

Letter Before Claim.pdf

[FTMDave]

No, it's a Letter Before Claim, he needs to reply.

 

Snotty letter time.

[dx100uk]

it's a PAPLOC ..snotty letter time..

 

edit:snap dave!

[FTMDave]

Great minds and all that dx

[Bazooka Boo]

Aha, excellent, I may need a steer to the content of snotty letter, which thread has one on?

[FTMDave]

There are hundreds here BB, but it's difficult to know what to send because we know nothing about what happened.

 

It would be much better if he took over this thread and

   - filled in the sticky  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/352949-have-you-received-a-speculative-invoice-from-a-private-parking-company-do-not-ignore-it/

   - uploaded the PCN

   - briefly told us what happened.

 

The fleecers are threatening court after 30 days ... tick tock.

 

 

[Bazooka Boo]

I've sent him the link to this thread, hopefully he can log on, it's his son who's had this invoice and trying to find the exact car park they (Parking Lie) are referring to is like looking for a needle in a haystack but we think we have the one they mean.

 

 

To me it looks that it is prohibitive, so he was trespassing, I've got him going out today to get photos of this car park, so at least we can look at what they say.

pe stuff.pdf

[lookinforinfo]

BB, Parking Eye have been very quick off the mark issuing Court procedures. There has been no attempt to use debt collectors or solicitors to issue final warnings. In fact to have reached the 28 th day to qualify them to have gained keeper liability by the 2nd June must have meant that they had the NTK  delivered within 7 -8 days. 

 

I have never seen PE or any other parking company initiate an LBC so early. I suspect that either your friend and PE have history or has contacted them to appeal or complain about the PCN and perhaps refused to pay.

 

In any event we do need to see the NTK with times and dates included as well as knowing if there has been correspondence or appeals made.

 

Of course it may be that they are trying to get as many cases in as possible before the new parking Act comes into force though they would start with the most recent is a mystery. 

 

But as FTMDave has already said the clock is ticking........................

 

[Bazooka Boo]

I appreciate that the photos of the signage are not great, however, the sign to the CP is simply stating ''Tariff payable by phone''.

 

Signs make reference to T&C's on signage in the car park, but I can't see any separate sign with T&C's on.

 

The other signs lay out the tariff payable.

 

Is the sign at the entrance supposed to inform drivers that it is a private car park and what tariffs are payable?

 

 

 

Apologies here is the PCN, this makes it as clear as mud!

 

 

PDF's merged compressed and attached.......

Parking Lie Rotherhamb-merged.compressed.pdf

[lookinforinfo]

Parking Eye send out a PCN 3 days after the alleged offence. It should be an NTK but they are calling it a Reminder?

So there is no keeper liability as no notice that the liability of the driver has been transferred to the keeper on that PCN .

Advise the keeper therefore not to admit if they were the driver.

 

If the father was the keeper then I would be inclined to advise PE that he was not the driver so cease writing to him as he is not going to tell them who was driving.

 

Any further attempt to demand money will be reported initially to the ICO followed by a summons for breaching his GDPR when informed that he was not the driver. {GDPR claims can be £750 and this may increase if PE do not desist.

[FTMDave]

There is something weird going on.

 

Maybe the "offence" was 26 April, the PCN 29 April, and this reminder letter 8 May?

 

The signs are certainly pants.  Looks like P&D but only payable by phone?

 

Not much we can do when the person in legal dispute won't come here but gets his dad to ask his dad's mate to do it for him (yes, two steps removed!)

[brassnecked]

Timeline doesn't look right, but if only option to pay is by phone are other issues as if someone not have a smartphone maybe can't pay.

[Bazooka Boo]

If he didn't pay then that would mean he was trespassing surely?

 

I've asked him to contact the LA and see if they have PP for their signs and camera, as they are relatively new additions to this car park so I'm banking on them not having any.....

 

Along with the hilarious signage which is garbage and a waste of concrete I shall knock up a response over the weekend.

 

Hopefully his son will join and get the advice first hand.

[Bazooka Boo]

Now I've got more time to dedicate to this thread, hopefully get it wrapped up next week.

 

The RK has attempted to join CAG, he is using a Mac are the login procedures different?

[honeybee13]

Can you tell us what error messages he's getting please, BB?

 

HB

[Bazooka Boo]

I shall HB, will be later on when I get a response....

[brassnecked]

Safari browser should work OK with CAG.

[Billy Idol]

Good Afternoon

 

I am the father of the owner fo the vehicle and attempting to assist him with the fine, its seems extremely unfair.  Sam has been parking there for 3 years and says that he never even saw the signs instructing visitors to pay, it seems to have changed recently.

 

I have tried contacting the council to see enquire about planning permission but it just rings off instantly so I'm struggling.

 

We have no history with Parking eye and have not been in touch with Parking eye over this or any other matter.

 

BB has been assisting with this and has asked me to join the thread which I have and its a little confusing at times.

 

Can I request some assistance and instruction as to the next step?

[dx100uk]

1st thing to understand is it is NOT A FINE.

 

 

[FTMDave]

Billy, are you the person PE are threatening to sue?

 

All this - frankly ridiculous - Person A has to ask Person B to ask Person C means we're still in the dark over the most basic of matters.

[Billy Idol]

Good evening

 

I am the father of the owner fo the vehicle and attempting to assist him with the "Penalty charge?", its seems extremely unfair.  Sam (My Son) has been parking there for 3 years and says that he never even saw the signs instructing visitors to pay, it seems to have changed recently.

 

Sam doesn't live with the but the mail comes to me as he hadn't change the address on his licence at the time.

 

Why is this such an issue?

 

I am dealing with it on behalf of my son, what is so "frankly ridiculous"?

[FTMDave]

Because after 24 posts we still haven't seen the original PCN (at least I think we haven't), we don't know what is written on the signs and we don't really know what the fleecers reckon your son did wrong.  The reason we don't know is very simple - the person who got the PCN is never here.

 

All the regulars here give up their free time to try to help others who are in  a mess, and it's extremely unfair to expect them to have to ask for the same information multiple times.

 

Also, the person who may end up in court won't have a clue how to defend themselves if they don't learn the legal arguments themselves.

 

If you can't see that is "frankly ridiculous" then fine, I'll take my leave and show the same level of interest in the thread that the person who got the PCN does.

[Billy Idol]

1 Date of the infringement 26/04/2021
 

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] Issue date 29/06/2021

 

3 Date received Not known
 

4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?] I don't see where it does if it does
 

5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Yes

 

6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] N
 

Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up N
 

7 Who is the parking company? Parking Eye

 

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] 74 Montgomery Square, Wath Upon Dearne, Rotherham
 

For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. POPLA
 

There are two official bodies, the BPA and the IAS. If you are unsure, please check HERE 26/04/2021

 

29 days have elaspsed.pdf Letter Before Claim.pdf

 

First day on the thread, appreciate all the assistance from volunteers, unaware of the protocol due to the first day with an account, I am playing catchup myself but working hard to bring everyone up to speed.  I am unaware of what everything means so I am also learning as I go.  If this goes to court I will have no problem representing.