IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.
yet another ParkingEye PCN!
Options
badgerhandelah
Posts: 10 Forumite
Hi Everyone,
Newbie here, I've read the newbie thread and other posts for help already, but looking for some further guidance from you fine folks
Am currently appealing an ANPR PCN from ParkingEye which I received via post.
Date of Event: 07/10/2017
Date issued: 25/10/2017
So 18 days between event and date the NtK was issued. The NtK was received in the post on the 27th October
The PCN did not contain the POFA 2012 text anywhere on the front or back of the notice.
I submitted my appeal using the BPA template, with the following text on 27th October:
Dear Sir/Madam
Re: PCN No. xxxxxxxxxxxxx
I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car.
I believe that your signs fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. Your unremarkable and obscure signs were not seen by the driver, are in very small print and the terms are not readable to drivers. Furthermore, as the PCN did not arrive within the stipulate period of 14 days, as specified within the POFA 2012, you have failed to meet the strict deadlines to transfer liability to the keeper.
Therefore, there will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 and offer me a POPLA code, or cancel the charge.
Should you have obtained the registered keeper's data from the DVLA without reasonable cause, please take this as formal notice that I reserve the right to sue your company and the landowner/principal, for a sum not less than £500 for any Data Protection Act breach. Your aggressive business practice and unwarranted threat of court for the ordinary matter of a driver using my car without causing any obstruction nor offence, has caused significant distress to me.
I do not give you consent to process data relating to me or this vehicle. I deny liability for any sum at all and you must consider this letter a Section 10 Notice under the DPA. You are required to respond within 21 days. I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.
Yours faithfully,
Today I received two replies from ParkingEye:
Reference: Parking Charge Notice - xxxxxxxxxxx
Dear Sir / Madam,
Thank you for your correspondence received in relation to the above referenced Parking Charge.
It is ParkingEye’s position that this Parking Charge has been issued correctly and that we had reasonable cause to request the Registered Keeper’s details from the DVLA following a breach of the terms and conditions of parking in operation on site. For your information, ParkingEye is authorised by the ICO to collect and process data for the purpose of car park management.
In respect of your request that we cease processing your data, we note that the right of an individual to request that processing of their personal data ceases only applies if continuing to process causes unwarranted and substantial damage or distress. In this regard, based upon the information you have provided, we do not consider that the continued processing of your personal data would cause unwarranted and substantial damage or distress.
Whilst the Data Protection Act does not define what is meant by unwarranted and substantial damage or distress, in most cases “substantial damage would be financial loss or physical harm; and substantial distress would be a level of upset, or emotional or mental pain, that goes beyond annoyance […]”. For further information about the above guidance from the ICO, please refer to https:// ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/principle-6-rights/damage-or-distress/
As stated within the Parking Charge Notice, the driver of the vehicle is responsible for payment and we have issued correspondence asking that you provide details for that individual if you were not the driver. We therefore wish to confirm that we have rejected your request to cease processing your data.
Yours sincerely,
Legal Services
ParkingEye Ltd.
Followed by:
Dear Sir / Madam,
Thank you for your correspondence in relation to the Parking Charge incurred on 07
October 2017 at 12:35, at Asda Kings Heath car park.
We are writing to advise you that your recent appeal has been placed on hold whilst we
await further information.
You have stated that you were not the driver of the vehicle at the date and time of the
breach of the terms and conditions of the car park, but you have not indicated who was.
ParkingEye have placed this charge on hold for 28 days to enable you to provide the
evidence requested. If this information is not provided within 28 days, the appeal may well
be rejected and a POPLA code provided.
Alternatively, payment can be made by telephoning our offices on 0330 555 4444 or by
visiting parking eye website (link removed) or by posting a cheque or postal order to the address
detailed below.
If this charge has been paid and you choose to provide further evidence relating to your
appeal, please forward this to us for consideration.
Yours faithfully,
ParkingEye Team
I'm not really sure what to do next, if anything at all?
Many thanks in advance!
Newbie here, I've read the newbie thread and other posts for help already, but looking for some further guidance from you fine folks
Am currently appealing an ANPR PCN from ParkingEye which I received via post.
Date of Event: 07/10/2017
Date issued: 25/10/2017
So 18 days between event and date the NtK was issued. The NtK was received in the post on the 27th October
The PCN did not contain the POFA 2012 text anywhere on the front or back of the notice.
I submitted my appeal using the BPA template, with the following text on 27th October:
Dear Sir/Madam
Re: PCN No. xxxxxxxxxxxxx
I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car.
I believe that your signs fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. Your unremarkable and obscure signs were not seen by the driver, are in very small print and the terms are not readable to drivers. Furthermore, as the PCN did not arrive within the stipulate period of 14 days, as specified within the POFA 2012, you have failed to meet the strict deadlines to transfer liability to the keeper.
Therefore, there will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 and offer me a POPLA code, or cancel the charge.
Should you have obtained the registered keeper's data from the DVLA without reasonable cause, please take this as formal notice that I reserve the right to sue your company and the landowner/principal, for a sum not less than £500 for any Data Protection Act breach. Your aggressive business practice and unwarranted threat of court for the ordinary matter of a driver using my car without causing any obstruction nor offence, has caused significant distress to me.
I do not give you consent to process data relating to me or this vehicle. I deny liability for any sum at all and you must consider this letter a Section 10 Notice under the DPA. You are required to respond within 21 days. I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.
Yours faithfully,
Today I received two replies from ParkingEye:
Reference: Parking Charge Notice - xxxxxxxxxxx
Dear Sir / Madam,
Thank you for your correspondence received in relation to the above referenced Parking Charge.
It is ParkingEye’s position that this Parking Charge has been issued correctly and that we had reasonable cause to request the Registered Keeper’s details from the DVLA following a breach of the terms and conditions of parking in operation on site. For your information, ParkingEye is authorised by the ICO to collect and process data for the purpose of car park management.
In respect of your request that we cease processing your data, we note that the right of an individual to request that processing of their personal data ceases only applies if continuing to process causes unwarranted and substantial damage or distress. In this regard, based upon the information you have provided, we do not consider that the continued processing of your personal data would cause unwarranted and substantial damage or distress.
Whilst the Data Protection Act does not define what is meant by unwarranted and substantial damage or distress, in most cases “substantial damage would be financial loss or physical harm; and substantial distress would be a level of upset, or emotional or mental pain, that goes beyond annoyance […]”. For further information about the above guidance from the ICO, please refer to https:// ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/principle-6-rights/damage-or-distress/
As stated within the Parking Charge Notice, the driver of the vehicle is responsible for payment and we have issued correspondence asking that you provide details for that individual if you were not the driver. We therefore wish to confirm that we have rejected your request to cease processing your data.
Yours sincerely,
Legal Services
ParkingEye Ltd.
Followed by:
Dear Sir / Madam,
Thank you for your correspondence in relation to the Parking Charge incurred on 07
October 2017 at 12:35, at Asda Kings Heath car park.
We are writing to advise you that your recent appeal has been placed on hold whilst we
await further information.
You have stated that you were not the driver of the vehicle at the date and time of the
breach of the terms and conditions of the car park, but you have not indicated who was.
ParkingEye have placed this charge on hold for 28 days to enable you to provide the
evidence requested. If this information is not provided within 28 days, the appeal may well
be rejected and a POPLA code provided.
Alternatively, payment can be made by telephoning our offices on 0330 555 4444 or by
visiting parking eye website (link removed) or by posting a cheque or postal order to the address
detailed below.
If this charge has been paid and you choose to provide further evidence relating to your
appeal, please forward this to us for consideration.
Yours faithfully,
ParkingEye Team
I'm not really sure what to do next, if anything at all?
Many thanks in advance!
0
Comments
-
Await your popla code0
-
Hi All,
Quick update, since my last correspondence from PE, I have received a PCN reminder today, but no response to my appeal which they put on hold.
The PCN reminder is dated 18 Dec, and they want payment by 6 January!
So far I've not received an appeal rejection or POPLA code.
Do I ignore the PCN reminder and wait for the POPLA code still?0 -
no , you send an email to the BPA with a timeline and attachments of all the correspondence so far, including the "placed on hold" acknowledgement , complaining that no rejection or popla code has been issued0
-
Ace, will do! Thanks Redx - very much appreciated and Merry Christmas!0
-
[FONT="]Hi All, happy New Year!
Thanks again for the help so far, I submitted my complaints to BPA and DVLA.
The DVLA said that as PE were not pursuing me under the POFA2012 there was nothing they could do further.
- Is this really correct, I'd have thought that as PE had not complied with POFA2012, then they have no justifiable reason to contact the DVLA and request the keepers details? Ie a breach of the DPA?
The BPA got back to me and stated they woudl contact PE with my complaint. I haven't heard anything further from them, I suspect I won't get anything else from them really.
I also finally received my appeal rejection from PE (after I had submitted a second appeal ), and they have also provided the POPLA ref,
so here is my appeal to POPLA, I would be hugely grateful if someone can take a quick look and see if I've covered the bases as a "Golden Ticket" holder[/FONT]
[FONT="]Dear POPLA,
PCN Number: xxxxxx
POPLA Verification Code: xxxxxx
I write to you as the registered keeper of the vehicle xxxxxx, I wish to appeal the £70 Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by ParkingEye Ltd. I submit the reasons below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT]1) The Notice to Keeper does not comply with sub-paragraph 9 (2 & 5)
[FONT="]2) No evidence of landowner authority[/FONT][FONT="]
[/FONT]3) [FONT="]The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge[/FONT][FONT="]
[/FONT]4) [FONT="]The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself[/FONT][FONT="]
[/FONT]5) [FONT="]Breach of the BPA Code of Practice on ANPR – DPA and CPUTRs breach.[/FONT][FONT="]
[/FONT]6) [FONT="]No Contract was entered into between the Parking Eye and the Driver or Registered keeper[/FONT][FONT="]
[/FONT]
[FONT="]1. The Notice to Keeper does not comply with sub-paragraph 9 (2 & 5) [/FONT]
[FONT="]To support this claim further the following areas of dispute are raised:[/FONT]
-[FONT="]The Notice to Keeper (NTK) was delivered outside of the relevant period specified under sub-paragraph 9 (5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)[/FONT]
-[FONT="]The Notice to Keeper does not warn the keeper that, if after a period of 28 days, ParkingEye Ltd. has the right to claim unpaid parking charges as specified under sub-paragraph 9 (2) (f) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012[/FONT]
[FONT="]The Notice to Keeper (NTK) was delivered outside of the relevant period specified under sub-paragraph 9 (5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) [/FONT]
[FONT="]Sub-paragraph 9 (5) specifies that the relevant period for delivery of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for the purposes of sub-paragraph 9 (4) is a period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended. According to the PCN, the specified period of parking ended on Saturday 7th October 2017. The relevant period is therefore the 14-day period from Sunday 8th July 2017 to Sunday 22nd October 2017 inclusive. [/FONT]
[FONT="]Sub-paragraph 9 (6) states that a notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose, “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales. The “Letter Date” stated on the PCN is Wednesday 25th October 2017 and in accordance with sub-paragraph 9 (6) is presumed to have been “given” on Friday 27th October 2017 (i.e. outside of the relevant period).[/FONT]
[FONT="]As [/FONT][FONT="]the Parking Charge/NTK was not issued under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, ParkingEye have failed to meet the requirements under POFA2012 to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper, and as the keeper I should not have been issued a Parking Charge Notice.[/FONT]
[FONT="]The Notice to Keeper does not warn the keeper that, if after a period of 28 days, ParkingEye Ltd. has the right to to claim unpaid parking charges as specified under sub-paragraph 9 (2) (f) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)
[/FONT][FONT="]
POFA 2012 requires that an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle, if certain conditions are met. As sub-paragraph 9 (2) (f) highlights a NTK much adhere to the following points:[/FONT]
[FONT="]The notice must be given by—[/FONT][FONT="]
warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—
(i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
(ii) the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,
the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; [/FONT]
[FONT="]Upon reviewing the NTK, ParkingEye Ltd have omitted any mention of the conditions as outlined in sub-paragraph 9 (2) (f). The appellant feels that the operator has failed to adhere to the conditions outlined under POFA 2012 and therefore breaches the documented legislation.
[/FONT]
[FONT="]2. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
etc etc
[/FONT]0 -
The PPC can justify getting the keeper's details because they want to ask the keeper to identify the driver.badgerhandelah wrote: »The DVLA said that as PE were not pursuing me under the POFA2012 there was nothing they could do further.
- Is this really correct, I'd have thought that as PE had not complied with POFA2012, then they have no justifiable reason to contact the DVLA and request the keepers details? Ie a breach of the DPA?0 -
Aaah Ok, that makes sense - thank you!
So, as the PPC failed to meet POFA, the keeper is under no obligation to disclose who the driver was, and therefore the liability cannot be transferred to the keeper?0 -
That's correct. The keeper never has any obligation to identify the driver to a PPC.badgerhandelah wrote: »Aaah Ok, that makes sense - thank you!
So, as the PPC failed to meet POFA, the keeper is under no obligation to disclose who the driver was, and therefore the liability cannot be transferred to the keeper?0 -
INded - all completing POFA does is ENABLE them to chase the keeper. They can ALWAYS request the keeper tells them who the driver is, the keeper only has to say if and only if a court orders it.0
-
As it's a ''Golden ticket'' (forum phrase, means nowt elsewhere) you'll win at POPLA on that basis. Or PE will fold early!PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards