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
    • pedrothecruel
    • By pedrothecruel 15th Oct 16, 11:23 PM
    • 6Posts
    • 3Thanks
    pedrothecruel
    Ocean Terminal short stay parkingeye fine Southampton
    • #1
    • 15th Oct 16, 11:23 PM
    Ocean Terminal short stay parkingeye fine Southampton 15th Oct 16 at 11:23 PM
    Hello,

    I recently received a £100 fine from the lovely people over at Parkingeye. I spent a good few hours in their car park but made the mistake of only paying for the time I left the car unattended. Unaware anpr was in effect I thought being in the car would be enough to stop a parking inspector issuing a ticket. Unfortunately it seems that wasn't the case.

    I have been reading a thread from a very similar scenario in the exact same location where popla got the ticket dropped.

    My question is has anything changed in the last year that would stop me using this same line of defense.

    I.E.

    1. Non-relevant land
    2. Notice to Hirer not compliant with the Protection of Freedom Act 2012
    3. Contract with the Landowner – no locus standi

    Point 1 relates to the fact that the land is subject to ABP Byelaws
    Point 2 relates to the fact that ParkingEye didn't attach a copy of the Notice to Keeper, Hire agreement and statement of liability to their Notice to Hirer
    Point 3 is questionning if Parking has the right to make contracts with drivers.

    I'm hoping to follow this chaps lead and get the same result but could do with a little advice before lodging my appeal.

    Many Thanks,
Page 1
    • pedrothecruel
    • By pedrothecruel 15th Oct 16, 11:28 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    pedrothecruel
    • #2
    • 15th Oct 16, 11:28 PM
    • #2
    • 15th Oct 16, 11:28 PM
    Oh, forgot to mention,

    My car is a lease car. I am not the registered keeper. The lease company has forwarded the fine to me. But I have received no copy of my lease agreement from them, should I have?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th Oct 16, 11:55 PM
    • 40,437 Posts
    • 52,331 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #3
    • 15th Oct 16, 11:55 PM
    • #3
    • 15th Oct 16, 11:55 PM
    If the lease firm has named you as lessee, wait to receive your own PCN in your name (if you've not had this yet, PE will send one, they always do). That's the one that PE need to include hire paperwork with - and they won't.

    Are you sure that the lease firm has named you to PE? Check, and if yes, wait.

    If they have NOT, and have only passed the PCN to you, then appeal as you planned but do not tip PE off that they need to serve a valid Notice to Hirer. Be vague, appeal as 'lessee/hirer' but not mentioning the need for a PCN, just referring to the PCN that the lease firm has passed to you, as lessee, to appeal...then mention 'not relevant land'.

    BTW good research - nothing has changed, they are slam-dunk winning points, the lack of keeper liability due to bylaws and due to no hire documents accompanying the PCN.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 15-10-2016 at 11:58 PM.
    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.

    • pedrothecruel
    • By pedrothecruel 16th Oct 16, 12:17 AM
    • 6 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    pedrothecruel
    • #4
    • 16th Oct 16, 12:17 AM
    • #4
    • 16th Oct 16, 12:17 AM
    Hi Coupon -mad,

    Sorry I should have been a little clearer, The lease company have already given them my details and have already received the fine in my name without a copy of the lease agreement.

    I feeling a bit more confident now you've told me the points are good. Pretty easy to research with a great resource like this. I'm going to send my appeal now. I'll keep you posted on my progress.

    Many Thanks,
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Oct 16, 12:48 AM
    • 40,437 Posts
    • 52,331 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #5
    • 16th Oct 16, 12:48 AM
    • #5
    • 16th Oct 16, 12:48 AM
    You will win if you get this right at POPLA stage (or PE will drop out).
    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.

    • pedrothecruel
    • By pedrothecruel 24th Nov 16, 12:01 AM
    • 6 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    pedrothecruel
    • #6
    • 24th Nov 16, 12:01 AM
    • #6
    • 24th Nov 16, 12:01 AM
    Parkingeye rejected my appeal as expected so I've just written up my appeal to popla. I've knocked something together using other peoples appeals so I'm not 100% sure I've got my points down as well as I could.. Any advice or pointers would be great.



    I am appealing against the Parking Charge Notice on the following grounds:


    1. The Ocean Cruise Terminal is not relevant land


    Parking Eye claim that under the Provision of Freedoms Act 2012 the Registered Keeper is liable to pay the Parking Charge Notice. However the Ocean Cruise Terminal is not "Relevant Land" as specified in the POFA 2012 Act as it covered by byelaws a copy of which can be found here: (can't post links here!) The driver cannot therefore be liable. Specifically Schedule 4, Paragraph 3 of PoFA 2012 advises of the type of land that the recovery of unpaid Parking Charge Notice’s (PCN)’s is applicable. The types of land that it is not applicable for is any land which already has statutory controls in relation to the parking of vehicles such as byelaws applying to ports.

    Parking Eye Ltd are aware of the issues surrounding "Relevant Land" in the Southampton area (see for example POPLA appeal 6060344057) and yet they continue to inaccurately attempt to claim that the Registered Keeper is liable.


    2.The 'Notice' fails to comply with the POFA 2012 (a copy of the signed hire agreement and statement of liability were not included) so there can be no hirer liability.


    I have written up the relevant section below.


    Hire vehicles


    13(1)This paragraph applies in the case of parking charges incurred in respect of the parking of a vehicle on relevant land if—


    “The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given—


    (a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;


    (b)a copy of the hire agreement; and


    (c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.


    (3)The statement of liability required by sub-paragraph (2)(c) must—


    (a)contain a statement by the hirer to the effect that the hirer acknowledges responsibility for any parking charges that may be incurred with respect to the vehicle while it is hired to the hirer;


    (b)include an address given by the hirer (whether a residential, business or other address) as one at which documents may be given to the hirer;


    3.. Contract with landowner - no locus standi

    Parking eye do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question. As such, I do not believe that Parking eye has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park, or indeed to allege a breach of contract. Accordingly, I require sight of a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed and dated site agreement/contract with the landowner (and not just a signed slip of paper saying that it exists). Some parking companies have provided “witness statements” instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. Nor would a witness statement show whether there is a payment made from either party within the agreement/contract which would affect any 'loss' calculations. Nor would it show whether the contract includes the necessary authority, required by the BPA CoP, to specifically allow Parking eye to pursue these charges in their own name as creditor in the Courts, and to grant them the standing/assignment of title to make contracts with drivers.

    In POPLA case reference 1771073004, POPLA ruled that a witness statement was 'not valid evidence'. This witness statement concerned evidence which could have been produced but was not. So if the operator produces a witness statement mentioning the contract, but does not produce the actual un-redacted contract document, then POPLA should be consistent and rule any such statement invalid.

    So I require the unredacted contract for all these stated reasons as I contend the Operator's authority is limited to that of a mere parking agent. I believe it is merely a standard business agreement between Parking eye and their client, which is true of any such business model. This cannot impact upon, nor create a contract with, any driver, as was found in case no. 3JD00517 ParkingEye v Clarke 19th December 2013 (Transcript linked): (can't post links here!)2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

    I refer the Adjudicator to the recent Appeal Court decision in the case of Vehicle Control Services (VCS) v HMRC ( EWCA Civ 186 [2013]): The principal issue in this case was to determine the actual nature of Private Parking Charges.

    It was stated that, "If those charges are consideration for a supply of goods or services, they will be subject to VAT. If, on the other hand, they are damages they will not be."

    The ruling of the Court stated, "I would hold, therefore, that the monies that VCS collected from motorists by enforcement of parking charges were not consideration moving from the landowner in return for the supply of parking services."

    In other words, they are not, as the Operator asserts, a contractual term. If they were a contractual term, the Operator would have to provide a VAT invoice, to provide a means of payment at the point of supply, and to account to HMRC for the VAT element of the charge. The Appellant asserts that these requirements have not been met. It must therefore be concluded that the Operator's charges are in fact damages, or penalties, for which the Operator must demonstrate his actual, or pre-estimated losses, as set out above.
    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 24th Nov 16, 12:17 AM
    • 5,356 Posts
    • 4,887 Thanks
    pappa golf
    • #7
    • 24th Nov 16, 12:17 AM
    • #7
    • 24th Nov 16, 12:17 AM
    if the land comes under bylaws , note that POPLa have all bylaw cases on hold , add a line at the top "BYLAW CASE" if applicable
    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.
    • pedrothecruel
    • By pedrothecruel 24th Nov 16, 12:46 AM
    • 6 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    pedrothecruel
    • #8
    • 24th Nov 16, 12:46 AM
    • #8
    • 24th Nov 16, 12:46 AM
    Cheers

    Just been reading up on it. Not sure if it's good or bad.
    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 24th Nov 16, 1:35 AM
    • 5,356 Posts
    • 4,887 Thanks
    pappa golf
    • #9
    • 24th Nov 16, 1:35 AM
    • #9
    • 24th Nov 16, 1:35 AM
    well its good and its good

    good :

    popla put cases on hold , 6 mth rule kicks in and the landowner is to late to press charges , PE could never start a case .


    good:

    POPLa decide at last that the definition of relevant land written by the goverment back in 2012 actually exists and they refuse to adjudicate on bylaw cases

    no appeal system = deliver no more tickets
    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.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 24th Nov 16, 10:46 AM
    • 40,437 Posts
    • 52,331 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    You need to add the template points about 'the individual not being shown to be the driver' and the 'unclear signs' template point.

    And replace your point #3 (which looks like it's a very old version) with the new template 'no landowner authority' point which quotes 7.3 of the BPA CoP.
    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.

    • pedrothecruel
    • By pedrothecruel 24th Nov 16, 8:48 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    pedrothecruel
    Thanks for the tips coupon mad. I'll update it and put the appeal in tonight.
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

4,082Posts Today

8,474Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @itvMLshow: Tonight #MartinLewis looks into our family finances; Marriage tax allowance, student loans and child tax credit, 8pm on @ITV?

  • Don't forget 8pm tonight ITV - should be a good show. As always my aim is to, in effect, pay you to watch #martinlewis money show

  • RT @bbc5live: After midday, money-saving @MartinSLewis will be here to answer your financial questions ????https://t.co/UQMSd5TKbb https://t.?

  • Follow Martin