Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • maomaomylove
    • By maomaomylove 9th Oct 16, 10:14 PM
    • 16Posts
    • 16Thanks
    maomaomylove
    ParkingEye PCN - broken ticket machine, need help on POPLA appeal
    • #1
    • 9th Oct 16, 10:14 PM
    ParkingEye PCN - broken ticket machine, need help on POPLA appeal 9th Oct 16 at 10:14 PM
    Hi everyone, I am very new here, but I need some help on the POPLA appeal against ParkingEye, many thanks.

    We received a PCN as the keeper of the car, on an event happened on a rainy Sunday night. Can't remember who was the driver, but still remember the event.

    It was a rainy Sunday night around 9pm, we had an emergency doctor appointment arranged by 111 for our baby in City of Coventry Health Centre. When we arrived the car park, it was very dark, no light (or nearly like no light), no clear signs can be seen at the entrance and the car park was very empty. The driver got off the car and tried to search for any signs, and found a broken pay&display ticket machine. There was no clear instructions on the machine to tell us what to do in the event when broken. We looked around, and could not see any other clear signs in the rain.

    We couldn't make a payment due to, unclear signs at night and in poor weather condition, broken ticket machine and no clear instructions. Also consider there was a sick baby waiting for an emergency doctor appointment at that time.

    I have appealed to ParkingEye based on fact mentioned above, and also used the template Coupon-mad provided in the NEWBIES thread, but they rejected my appeal with the reply: "...Our records confirm that no parking was purchased on the date of the parking event, despite there being payment methods available on the day in question....As gesture of goodwill, we have extended the discount period for a further 14 days from the date of this correspondence (only 1 week left now)..." They did provide me a POPLA code though.

    Do you guys think if I appeal to POPLA, I have a chance to win or lose?

    Many thanks again!
Page 1
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Oct 16, 10:20 PM
    • 40,372 Posts
    • 52,253 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #2
    • 9th Oct 16, 10:20 PM
    • #2
    • 9th Oct 16, 10:20 PM
    Firstly, can you look at the first PCN and tell us if it has a paragraph in the bottom half of page one, about 'after 29 days...under the POFA 2012...we will have the right... to hold the registered keeper liable'?
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • maomaomylove
    • By maomaomylove 9th Oct 16, 10:24 PM
    • 16 Posts
    • 16 Thanks
    maomaomylove
    • #3
    • 9th Oct 16, 10:24 PM
    • #3
    • 9th Oct 16, 10:24 PM
    I have read Chrisotherwise's thread, and found the case very similar. Should I use his POPLA appeal points in my appeal?

    1. ParkingEye Ltd has no contractual authority
    2. Keeper Liability Requirements and the Protection of Freedom Act
    3. ANPR Accuracy and Compliance
    4. No Contract was entered into between the Parking Eye and the Driver or Registered keeper
    5. The car park had unclear, non-obvious, non-bpa-compliant signage leading to the driver not being aware that a parking contract was being offered at the time

    I didn't find he said anything about the broken ticket machine in the appeal letter......
    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 9th Oct 16, 10:29 PM
    • 5,353 Posts
    • 4,882 Thanks
    pappa golf
    • #4
    • 9th Oct 16, 10:29 PM
    • #4
    • 9th Oct 16, 10:29 PM
    I have read Chrisotherwise's thread, and found the case very similar. Should I use his POPLA appeal points in my appeal?

    1. ParkingEye Ltd has no contractual authority
    2. Keeper Liability Requirements and the Protection of Freedom Act
    3. ANPR Accuracy and Compliance
    4. No Contract was entered into between the Parking Eye and the Driver or Registered keeper
    5. The car park had unclear, non-obvious, non-bpa-compliant signage leading to the driver not being aware that a parking contract was being offered at the time

    I didn't find he said anything about the broken ticket machine in the appeal letter......
    Originally posted by maomaomylove

    that was not the question asked , the question was


    "Firstly, can you look at the first PCN and tell us if it has a paragraph in the bottom half of page one, about 'after 29 days...under the POFA 2012...we will have the right... to hold the registered keeper liable'? "


    please answer that , it is being asked for an important reason
    Have YOU had to walk 500 miles?
    Were you advised to walk 500 more?
    You could be entitled to compensation.
    Call the Pro Claimers NOW.
    • maomaomylove
    • By maomaomylove 9th Oct 16, 10:30 PM
    • 16 Posts
    • 16 Thanks
    maomaomylove
    • #5
    • 9th Oct 16, 10:30 PM
    • #5
    • 9th Oct 16, 10:30 PM
    Firstly, can you look at the first PCN and tell us if it has a paragraph in the bottom half of page one, about 'after 29 days...under the POFA 2012...we will have the right... to hold the registered keeper liable'?
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Hi, many thanks for the quick reply! We looked the first PCN letter, and it didn't contain any words you mentioned
    • maomaomylove
    • By maomaomylove 9th Oct 16, 10:32 PM
    • 16 Posts
    • 16 Thanks
    maomaomylove
    • #6
    • 9th Oct 16, 10:32 PM
    • #6
    • 9th Oct 16, 10:32 PM
    that was not the question asked , the question was


    "Firstly, can you look at the first PCN and tell us if it has a paragraph in the bottom half of page one, about 'after 29 days...under the POFA 2012...we will have the right... to hold the registered keeper liable'? "


    please answer that , it is being asked for an important reason
    Originally posted by pappa golf
    Hi thanks! No, there wasn't any such words mentioned in the letter
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Oct 16, 10:32 PM
    • 40,372 Posts
    • 52,253 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #7
    • 9th Oct 16, 10:32 PM
    • #7
    • 9th Oct 16, 10:32 PM
    Hi, many thanks for the quick reply! We looked the first PCN letter, and it didn't contain any words you mentioned
    Originally posted by maomaomylove
    Nice one! Good.

    OK so, does it have a blank space near the end of page one (as if a short paragraph is missing) and what is the gap in days, between the 'date of event' and 'date issued'?
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • maomaomylove
    • By maomaomylove 9th Oct 16, 10:36 PM
    • 16 Posts
    • 16 Thanks
    maomaomylove
    • #8
    • 9th Oct 16, 10:36 PM
    • #8
    • 9th Oct 16, 10:36 PM
    Nice one! Good.

    OK so, does it have a blank space near the end of page one (as if a short paragraph is missing) and what is the gap in days, between the 'date of event' and 'date issued'?
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Yes! It has a blank space near the end of page one like a short paragraph is missing

    Date of event: 21/08/2016
    Date of issue: 08/09/2016
    Date of reject appeal: 03/10/2016

    Thanks!
    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 9th Oct 16, 10:41 PM
    • 5,353 Posts
    • 4,882 Thanks
    pappa golf
    • #9
    • 9th Oct 16, 10:41 PM
    • #9
    • 9th Oct 16, 10:41 PM
    CM will be along shortly , but in your appeal did you mention that you were the DRIVER or just the reg keeper


    PS , the dates shown indicate that PE exceeded the 14 days to communicate in order to hold you (the reg keeper) liable , you have stated "Date of issue: 08/09/2016" , but I will guarantee they sent it via private mail company , and you received it at least a week after that date
    Last edited by pappa golf; 09-10-2016 at 10:44 PM.
    Have YOU had to walk 500 miles?
    Were you advised to walk 500 more?
    You could be entitled to compensation.
    Call the Pro Claimers NOW.
    • maomaomylove
    • By maomaomylove 9th Oct 16, 10:43 PM
    • 16 Posts
    • 16 Thanks
    maomaomylove
    CM will be along shortly , but in your appeal did you mention that you were the DRIVER or just the reg keeper
    Originally posted by pappa golf
    Thanks, no I didn't mention who was the driver, I just said I am the reg keeper. Tried to follow the guide in the NEWBIES thread.
    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 9th Oct 16, 10:52 PM
    • 5,353 Posts
    • 4,882 Thanks
    pappa golf
    OK , you did right , have you contacted the health centre and explained that due to lighting and faulty machine you could not pay , and asked them as a genuine customer to get it cancelled? , if not DO IT tomorrow
    Have YOU had to walk 500 miles?
    Were you advised to walk 500 more?
    You could be entitled to compensation.
    Call the Pro Claimers NOW.
    • maomaomylove
    • By maomaomylove 9th Oct 16, 11:02 PM
    • 16 Posts
    • 16 Thanks
    maomaomylove
    OK , you did right , have you contacted the health centre and explained that due to lighting and faulty machine you could not pay , and asked them as a genuine customer to get it cancelled? , if not DO IT tomorrow
    Originally posted by pappa golf
    Yes, I've made a complaint to the health centre. Hopefully I will get a reply soon...
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 10th Oct 16, 12:28 AM
    • 40,372 Posts
    • 52,253 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Hi, many thanks for the quick reply! We looked the first PCN letter, and it didn't contain any words you mentioned
    Originally posted by maomaomylove
    So you can use the template POPLA appeal point in 'POPLA Decisions' posts #2341, 2342, 2343 and 2345. One of those is a detailed demolition of signage and you can even add to it - make it even longer - and say what you said here (as long as you are careful not to imply who was driving; you can say 'we'):

    It was a rainy Sunday night around 9pm, we had an emergency doctor appointment arranged by 111 for our baby in City of Coventry Health Centre. When we arrived the car park, it was very dark, no light (or nearly like no light), no clear signs can be seen at the entrance and the car park was very empty. The driver got off the car and tried to search for any signs, and found a broken pay&display ticket machine. There was no clear instructions on the machine to tell us what to do in the event when broken. We looked around, and could not see any other clear signs in the rain.

    We couldn't make a payment due to, unclear signs at night and in poor weather condition, broken ticket machine and no clear instructions. Also consider there was a sick baby waiting for an emergency doctor appointment at that time.
    HTH, show us what it all looks like (it may be so long it might cover two posts)!
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • maomaomylove
    • By maomaomylove 10th Oct 16, 9:51 PM
    • 16 Posts
    • 16 Thanks
    maomaomylove
    OK , you did right , have you contacted the health centre and explained that due to lighting and faulty machine you could not pay , and asked them as a genuine customer to get it cancelled? , if not DO IT tomorrow
    Originally posted by pappa golf
    Hi, I've got a reply from VirginCare, who provides the service on City of Coventry Health Centre, saying

    "Thank you for taking the time to contact us through or website. I am sorry to hear about your experience, unfortunately the service is unable to help as the carpark does not come under our jurisdiction as we are not the owners of the site. The only way to get the decision overturned is by contacting Parking Eye through their website or by post.ite or by post."

    I felt like I didn't complain to the right person, but there is no contact details on their website, just a phone number to make appointments. Where can I get their email address to write directly to the Health Centre?

    Many thanks!
    • maomaomylove
    • By maomaomylove 10th Oct 16, 9:58 PM
    • 16 Posts
    • 16 Thanks
    maomaomylove
    Many thanks Coupon-mad, I will try to sort out a POPLA appeal letter soon.
    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 10th Oct 16, 10:14 PM
    • 5,353 Posts
    • 4,882 Thanks
    pappa golf
    Hi, I've got a reply from VirginCare, who provides the service on City of Coventry Health Centre, saying

    "Thank you for taking the time to contact us through or website. I am sorry to hear about your experience, unfortunately the service is unable to help as the carpark does not come under our jurisdiction as we are not the owners of the site. The only way to get the decision overturned is by contacting Parking Eye through their website or by post.ite or by post."

    I felt like I didn't complain to the right person, but there is no contact details on their website, just a phone number to make appointments. Where can I get their email address to write directly to the Health Centre?

    Many thanks!
    Originally posted by maomaomylove

    reply back to virgincare and ask them who owns the land
    Have YOU had to walk 500 miles?
    Were you advised to walk 500 more?
    You could be entitled to compensation.
    Call the Pro Claimers NOW.
    • maomaomylove
    • By maomaomylove 11th Oct 16, 9:29 PM
    • 16 Posts
    • 16 Thanks
    maomaomylove
    reply back to virgincare and ask them who owns the land
    Originally posted by pappa golf
    Thanks, replied to them last night, haven't got any reply yet
    • maomaomylove
    • By maomaomylove 11th Oct 16, 10:23 PM
    • 16 Posts
    • 16 Thanks
    maomaomylove
    I have put together a draft for the POPLA appeal, mainly copied shamelessly from others in this forum, especially the templates Coupon-mad provided and from Chrisotherwise's appeal, HUGE thanks to them!!


    Dear POPLA,
    PCN Number: xxx
    POPLA Verification Code: xxx


    I write to you as the registered keeper of the vehicle xxxx, I wish to appeal the £70 Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by ParkingEye Ltd.

    As the keeper of the car, I have contacted the driver of the event, and was allowed to quote the words here: "It was a rainy night, we had an emergency doctor appointment arranged by 111 for our baby in City of Coventry Health Centre. When we arrived the car park, it was very dark, no clear signs can be seen at the entrance and the car park was very empty. We got off the car and tried to search for any signs, and found a broken pay&display ticket machine. There was no clear instructions on the machine to tell us what to do in the event when broken. We looked around, and could not see any other clear signs in the rain."

    Based on the quotation, I believe the driver of the event could not make a payment due to, unclear signs at night and in poor weather condition, broken ticket machine and no clear instructions. Also consider there was a sick baby waiting for an emergency doctor appointment with the driver at that time.

    Therefore, I submit the reasons below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:

    1. ParkingEye Ltd has no contractual authority
    2. Keeper Liability Requirements and the Protection of Freedom Act
    3. ANPR Accuracy and Compliance
    4. No Contract was entered into between the Parking Eye and the Driver or Registered keeper
    5. The car park had unclear, non-obvious, non-bpa-compliant signage leading to the driver not being aware that a parking contract was being offered at the time (night, raining).


    1. ParkingEye Ltd has no contractual authority

    In the notices they have sent me ParkingEye Ltd have not shown any evidence that they have any proprietary interest in the car park/land in question. Also they have not provided me with any evidence that they are lawfully entitled to demand money from either driver or keeper. It would seem that they do not own or have any interest or assignment of title in the land. I can only assume instead they are agents for the owner/legal occupier instead. I submit therefore that they do not have the necessary legal right to make the charge for a vehicle using the car park. I require ParkingEye Ltd to provide a full, up-to date and signed/dated contract with the landowner (a statement saying someone has seen the contract is not enough). The contract needs to state that ParkingEye Ltd are entitled to pursue matters such as these through the issue of Parking Charge Notices and in the courts in their own name. I clarify that this should be an actual copy and not just a document that claims a contract/agreement exists.


    2. Keeper Liability Requirements and the Protection of Freedom Act

    As the keeper of the vehicle, I decline, as is my right to provide the name of the driver of the vehicle at the time in question. As the parking company have neither named the driver nor provided any evidence as to who the driver was, I submit that I am not liable to any charge. In regards to the notices I have received ParkingEye has made it clear that it is operating under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act but has not fully met all the keeper liability requirements and therefore keeper liability does not apply. The parking company can therefore in relation to this point only pursue the driver.

    I would like to point out that Schedule 4 paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act stipulates that some mandatory information must be included in the Notice to Keeper. If all of this information is not present then the Notice to Keeper is invalid and the condition set out in paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 has not been complied with. The Act clearly states that the parking charge notice to keeper should invite the registered keeper to pay the outstanding parking charge (or if he/she was not the driver, to provide the name and address of the driver and pass a copy of the notice on to that driver). In their parking charge notice letter at no point did they actually invite me as the registered keeper to pay the parking charge. Instead they imply that my only choice is to give up the name of the driver of the vehicle (when in actual fact I am under no legal obligation to do so). The wording of the PCN actually makes it sound like I have little choice but to give up the driver and does not actually state the choice to pay it myself. I would also like to point out that the Act stipulates that the parking company must provide me with the period the car was parked. I would strongly argue that the format of evidence provided (photographs from a number plate recognition camera showing the vehicle enter and leave the car park) is not actually valid or sufficient on its own as a form of evidence. Parking Eye should also have issued a Notice to Driver stuck on the vehicle to back up their claims that the car was even parked in the first place, which in this case they failed to do.


    3. ANPR Accuracy and Compliance

    I require ParkingEye Ltd to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that ParkingEye Ltd must produce evidence in response to these points and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the Operator in ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence from the Operator was 'fundamentally flawed' as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.

    So, in addition to showing their maintenance records, I require ParkingEye Ltd in this case to show evidence to rebut this point: I suggest that in the case of my vehicle being in this car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The operator appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live". Hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. Therefore I contend that this ANPR "evidence" from this Operator in this car park is just as unreliable as the ParkingEye system in the Fox-Jones case and I put this Operator to strict proof to the contrary.

    In addition, the unreliable/unsynchronised ANPR system used, and lack of information about the use of data, is not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice, which contains the following:
    ''21 Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR)
    21.1 You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.
    21.2 Quality checks: before you issue a parking charge notice you must carry out a manual quality check of the ANPR images to reduce errors and make sure that it is appropriate to take action. Full details of the items you should check are listed in the Operators’ Handbook.
    21.3 You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your car parks in good working order. You need to make sure the data you are collecting is accurate, securely held and cannot be tampered with.
    21.4 It is also a condition of the Code that, if you receive and process vehicle or registered keeper data, you must:
    • be registered with the Information Commissioner
    • keep to the Data Protection Act
    • follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data
    • follow the guidelines from the Information Commissioner’s Office on the use of CCTV and ANPR cameras, and on keeping and sharing personal data such as vehicle registration marks.''

    At this location, there are merely a couple of secret small cameras up high on a pole. No signs at the car park clearly tell drivers about this technology nor how the data captured by ANPR cameras will be used. This means the system does not operate in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner, and I have reason to believe that, potentially, every section of paragraph 21 is breached here. Unless the Operator can show documentary evidence otherwise, then this BPA Cop breach would also point to a failure to comply with the POFA 2012 (keeper liability requires strict compliance), a failure to comply with the ICO terms of registration and a breach of the CPUTR 2008 (claiming to comply with the BPA Code of Practice when I believe it is not the case). This Operator is put to strict proof to the contrary.


    4. No Contract was entered into between the Parking Eye and the Driver or Registered keeper

    Although I was not the driver of the event, I would like to point out that the signs at the car park in question are unsuitable to inform drivers of the full terms and conditions of what they are entering into by physically entering the car park. ParkingEye clearly relies on contract law, but does not do enough to make clear what the terms and conditions of the contract are, making it far too easy for people to unwittingly fall outside the terms of contract. It is not appropriate for a car park such as this to have such a limited amount of signs and rely on drivers to look carefully for where and how the terms are displayed. It is surely the responsibility of ParkingEye Ltd to make the terms of their contract far clearer so that drivers have no doubt whatsoever of any supposed contract they may be entering into. I require ParkingEye Ltd to provide evidence as to how clear the terms and conditions are and consider if the methods used are clear enough for this type of car park. I would specifically like them to look into how clear the signs are that inform drivers that ANPR cameras are in use on this site.

    Furthermore a contract can only be considered to be entered into if enough evidence exists that it actually happened. For a contract to have been entered into the driver would have had to get out of the car, read the signs, fully interpret and understand them and then agree to them. None of which ever actually happened.

    I request that ParkingEye Ltd provide concrete evidence that a contract existed between themselves and the driver on the day in question, which meets all the legal requirements of forming a contract. They should include specific things including, agreement from both parties, clarity and certainty of terms etc. If they are not met then the contract would be deemed “unfair” under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999.


    5. The car park had unclear, non-obvious, non-bpa-compliant signage leading to the driver not being aware that a parking contract was being offered at the time (night, raining).

    As a POPLA assessor has said previously in an adjudication
    “Once an Appellant submits that the terms of parking were not displayed clearly enough, the onus is then on the Operator to demonstrate that the signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently clear”.

    The parking company needs to prove that the driver actually saw, read and accepted the terms, which means that I and the POPLA adjudicator would be led to believe that a conscious decision was made by the driver to park in exchange for paying the extortionate fixed amount that Parking Eye is now demanding, rather than simply the nominal amount presumably due in a machine on site.

    The alleged breach occurred on a rainy night and the signs were not visible (readable) or illuminated to be seen by any driver entering the car park at that time of the day; the car park itself was not illuminated as the public lighting was off. These are not mitigating circumstances but failure by ParkingEye plus to ensure that their signs were to be seen accordingly. The BPA Code of Practice section 18, state that clear signage must be erected at each entrance and additional signage installed throughout the area. The signs must be visible at all times of the day; these requirements were not met and I demand strict proof that those signs are visible at the time of darkness.

    The BPA Code of Practice, Appendix B, under Contrast and illumination:

    Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. This can be achieved in a variety of ways such as by direct lighting or by using the lighting for the parking area. If the sign itself is not directly or indirectly lit, we suggest that it should be made of a retro-reflective material similar to that used on public roads and described in the Traffic Signs Manual. Dark-coloured areas do not need to be reflective. Clearly none of these conditions were met (see attached photographs of non-bpa-compliant, non-obvious signage).

    Furthermore, the landmark case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 establishes that a parking charge will only be valid where signage is clear and the driver therefore able to be fully aware of any charges. ParkingEye did not provide me with evidence that such signs, if present, were available throughout the car park and visible, from the area where the car was parked at the time of the event.


    Therefore, it is respectfully requested that this parking charge notice appeal be allowed and the appeal should be upheld on every point.

    Yours faithfully
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th Oct 16, 11:01 PM
    • 40,372 Posts
    • 52,253 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    A good start!

    I would replace points #1 and #2 with these (below) and yes, get rid of your points #1 and #2 completely.

    Then add at the end the 'no landowner authority' template from 'POPLA Decisions' (the posts I suggested to use, as they are longer and newer than chrisotherwise's example and the landowner one cites 7.3 of the CoP in detail):




    1) ParkingEye's Parking Charge Notice is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the dates and the wording used.

    Under schedule 4, paragraph 4 of the POFA, an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle if certain conditions must be met as stated in paragraphs 5, 6, 11, and 12. ParkingEye have failed to fulfil the conditions which state that an operator must have provided the keeper with a Notice to Keeper (NTK) in accordance with paragraph 9, which stipulates as mandatory, a set timeline and wording:-

    The notice must be given by—
    (a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or
    (b) sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.
    The applicable section here is (b) because the Parking Charge Notice/NTK that I have received was delivered by post. Furthermore, paragraph 9(5) states:

    ’’The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended’’

    The Parking Charge Notice sent to myself as Registered Keeper was produced in their offices (never actually posted on that day, as is well known) showing a ‘date issued’ of 08/09/2016. This is almost three weeks after the alleged event, shown as 21/08/2016.

    This means that ParkingEye have failed to act within the 14 day relevant period. Furthermore, it is clear that ParkingEye know this because they have used the alternative version of their template ‘Parking Charge Notice’ – the one with a blank space near the bottom of page one and no reference to ‘keeper liability’ or the POFA.

    So, this is a charge that could only be potentially enforced against a known driver. Whilst I was an occupant of the car, the driver has never been admitted and there is no evidence as to the identity of that individual, which brings me to point #2:



    2) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.


    In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

    Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay, not by POPLA, nor the operator, nor even in court.

    I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a POFA-compliant NTK. Only full compliance with Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence that a keeper was the driver) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed by POPLA to be the liable party. The burden of proof rests with the Operator, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

    The vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:-

    Understanding keeper liability
    “There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

    There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''


    No lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from a keeper, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA. This exact finding was made in a very similar case with the same style NTK in 6061796103 v ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:

    ''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • maomaomylove
    • By maomaomylove 11th Oct 16, 11:56 PM
    • 16 Posts
    • 16 Thanks
    maomaomylove
    Many thanks Coupon-mad, I will do what you suggested to replace the point 1 and 2, and add below as point 6.

    6. No evidence of Landowner Authority

    As ParkingEye Ltd does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what ParkingEye is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

    Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

    Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

    Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

    7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

    7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

    a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

    b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

    c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

    d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

    e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,245Posts Today

5,869Users online

Martin's Twitter