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
    • Aurelient1
    • By Aurelient1 5th Apr 17, 10:19 PM
    • 12Posts
    • 9Thanks
    Aurelient1
    Hire Car - Appeal for Missing Documents?
    • #1
    • 5th Apr 17, 10:19 PM
    Hire Car - Appeal for Missing Documents? 5th Apr 17 at 10:19 PM
    Hello everyone,

    First of all, thanks a lot guys for everything you have done so far to help people not becoming cash cows towards these unscrupulous private companies who claim disproportionate amount of money when you don't even make them loose anything in most of the cases.
    Glad to see there is still people in this world fighting the unfairness.

    About my case:
    As I have been living in England for only 3 years now, I did not know anything about private parking tickets until yesterday, when I spent 5 hours reading a lot of threads on this forum on how I could appeal for the parking charge notice I have recently received.

    I understood that since the Beavis case, we cannot appeal with the "no-loss" argument.
    I also have to say that the parking company did a good job in securing their business as there is nothing to say on the display/signage on site, on the pictures evidences, or on the PCN itself as everything is well defined, even the keeper-liability.

    However, as this car is a lease, the parking company sent the PCN to the lease company. My lease company sent them my details, referring me as the keeper of the car so they stay away of this situation.

    That means I am now expecting a NTK in my mailbox, and the only chance I can have to appeal is if I do not receive the documents they have to send me in time.

    If I understand well Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Section 13 – (2), they have to send me:
    the NTK + the original PCN + the following documents:

    (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.
    When I have contacted the lease company, they told me this:

    I have looked into the fine for you and can confirm that we received the fine dated the XX/XX/XXXX on the XX/XX/XXXX and sent your details back to the parking company on the XX/XX/XXXX. I can also confirm that we did not send a hire agreement as it is not a requirement by them.
    QUESTIONS:
    Should I understand from Section 13-2 that the parking company have to send me documents (a) AND (b) AND (c), or can they just send me one of these documents ?

    If they have to send all these documents, then I believe I will never receive the documents required by section 13-2 for them to exercise their right to recover the unpaid charge within 28 days as they have never asked the hire agreement to my lease company.

    Can I be confident on appealing following Edna Basher's template? ([forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=69859059#post69859059)

    Thanks for your advise!
    Last edited by Aurelient1; 05-04-2017 at 11:08 PM.
Page 2
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 8th Jun 17, 10:59 PM
    • 51,886 Posts
    • 65,532 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Please show us your draft, which uses Edna Basher's #1 (if it's ParkingEye) and then the usual template POPLA appeal points already written for you (linked in post #3 of the NEWBIES thread) with your second point being the one about: 'no evidence that the appellant is the individual liable' then (#3) signage, then (#4) landowner authority.

    Quite easy to piece together, we've given you the wording so you don'even have to write it, just build it together like all the other POPLA appellants here do, having never done so before.

    Unfortunately I do not see any other legal appeal points I could use apart from the lack of documents.
    Originally posted by Aurelient1
    Then you haven't read & understood post #3 of the NEWBIES thread. I even told you which ones to use and in what order...!

    they have covered every possible angles for people not to appeal on these
    Hahahahahahahaha!

    You are a HIRER/LESSEE and you can't be held liable, you have a slam-dunk WINNING POPLA appeal, and yet you say that?!
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 08-06-2017 at 11:03 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Aurelient1
    • By Aurelient1 10th Jun 17, 11:33 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Aurelient1
    I read in details the newbies thread and I think I have got the point about not taking everything written on the PCN as true but instead challenging the operator to prove that the few pieces of information on the PCN are valid.

    Sorry if I have jumped too fast to conclusions yesterday and thank you again for putting me on the right track!

    So I am preparing my appeal and I will send a draft probably tomorrow. I need to go and check 2-3 things about the signage on site before using it in the appeal.
    • Aurelient1
    • By Aurelient1 11th Jun 17, 6:39 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Aurelient1
    Please let me know what you think about it.

    I have adapted the "3. No keeper liability" to a "3. No hirer liability" as the only document in my possession is the Notice to Hirer, I have not seen the Notice to Keeper.

    I have also added in "5. Signage" the fact that there is no clear sign of boundary in the area for the driver to know when he/she is entering or exiting the private land.

    Dear Sir/Madam,
    As the registered hirer of the above vehicle, I wish to appeal the parking charge notice ParkingEye Ltd issued against the mentioned vehicle. I believe the parking charge notice should be cancelled based on the following grounds:
    1. ParkingEye Ltd has failed to meet the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”),
    2. No evidence that the appellant is the individual liable – No Driver Liability,
    3. No Hirer Liability,
    4. BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance of photo evidence,
    5. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces, there is no clear delimitations of the car park area and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself,
    6. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.




    1. ParkingEye Ltd has failed to meet the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”)

    In order to be able to rely upon POFA to claim unpaid parking charges from a vehicle’s hirer, a private parking company must deliver a Notice to Hirer that fully meets the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA.

    ParkingEye Ltd’s Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) issued to me on 03/05/2017 failed to comply with these strict requirements and ParkingEye Ltd has therefore forfeited any right to hold me liable for this PCN in their capacity as the vehicle’s hirer.

    The relevant provisions concerning hire vehicles are set out in Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 of POFA, with Paragraph 14 setting out the conditions that the Creditor must meet in order to be able to hold the hirer liable for an unpaid parking charge.

    Paragraph 14 (2) (a) specifies that in addition to delivering a Notice to Hirer within the relevant period, the Creditor must also provide the hirer with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) (i.e. 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), together with a copy of the Notice to Keeper (i.e. the notice that had originally been sent to the lease company (as registered keeper)).

    ParkingEye Ltd did not provide me with copies of any of these documents.

    Furthermore, ParkingEye Ltd has failed to comply with Paragraph 14 (5) of Schedule 4, specifically Paragraph 14 (5) (b) which requires that the Notice to Hirer must refer the hirer to the information contained in the Notice to Keeper. ParkingEye’s Notice to Hirer refers the hirer only to the Notice to Keeper itself, not to the information contained in the Notice to Keeper. This is a fundamental omission, especially given that ParkingEye Ltd did not provide me with a copy of the Notice to Keeper as required under Paragraph 14 (2) (a). Consequently, ParkingEye Ltd failed to provide me with much of the information that was required to be included in the Notice to Keeper under Paragraph 9 (2).

    I refer to previous POPLA Case Refs.6060986078 and 6061027318 (amongst others) in which POPLA determined that PCNs issued by ParkingEye Ltd to vehicle hirers are not compliant as a Notice to Hirer for the purpose of POFA.

    For this reason alone, POPLA may reasonably determine that ParkingEye Ltd has no valid claim against me and that their appeal should therefore be allowed.

    2. No evidence that the appellant is the individual liable – No Driver Liability

    The operator has not shown that the entity who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge.

    In cases with a hirer appellant, yet no POFA 'hirer 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.

    In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as they are 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 parking charge cannot be enforced against a hirer without a valid NTK.

    As the hirer of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the hirer and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a hirer appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

    The burden of proof rests with the Operator 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.

    Furthermore, 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:

    “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.''

    Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from me as hirer of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.

    This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye Ltd 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.''

    3. No Hirer Liability

    The Notice to Hirer did not 'specify the period of parking' to which it related. It merely provided the dates and times when the vehicle allegedly entered and exited the car park.
    These times do not equate to any single evidenced period of parking. There is no evidence of a single period of parking and this cannot reasonably be assumed on the balance of probabilities, from two photos of a car in moving traffic, timed hours apart.

    Since there is no evidence to actual parking times this would fail the requirements of POFA 2012, paragraph 9(2)(a), which states;

    “Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.”

    It cannot be discounted that the driver may have driven in and out on two separate occasions. There is ample evidence in the public domain that ANPR timings can mask other ordinary circumstances, such as two visits ('double dip', a well-known phenomenon).

    Here are just three examples of BPA member ANPR evidence failures, including a court loss and an ICO investigation:

    parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/highview-parking-spurred-into-immediate.html

    parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/parkingeye-lose-in-court-accuse-drivers.html

    parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/parkingeye-subject-to-data-protection.html

    This 'double dip' fault in ANPR evidence is a fact confirmed by the BPA in the following article:

    britishparking.co.uk/Other-Advice#4

    As with all new technology, there are issues associated with its use:
    “Repeat users of a car park inside a 24 hour period sometimes find that their first entry is paired with their last exit, resulting in an ‘overstay’. Operators are becoming aware of this and should now be checking all ANPR transactions to ensure that this does not occur.”

    The BPA even mention this as an inherent problem with ANPR on their website.

    The BPA's view is: “As with all new technology, there are issues associated with its use. Some ‘drive in/drive out’ motorists that have activated the system receive a charge certificate even though they have not parked or taken a ticket. Reputable operators tend not to uphold charge certificates issued in this manner...”

    POFA 2012, paragraph 9(3) states:

    “The notice must relate only to a single period of parking specified under sub-paragraph (2)(a)”

    If the ANPR system has picked up two separate occasions then it would fail on the above ruling as two separate PCNs should be issued, assuming the vehicle in question had breached the contract terms, and not just the one that was sent to the hirer. The operator is to provide strict proof that there was only one period of parking, because this is a mandatory requirement for hirer liability also stated clearly in Schedule 4.

    Consequently, ParkingEyeLtd has forfeited its right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the hirer of the vehicle.

    The wording in the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 is as follows:

    ''Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle: 4(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. (2) The right under this paragraph applies only if—

    (a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6*, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met;

    *Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4:
    6(1) ''The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor) — (b) has given a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 9.''

    The operator has failed to meet the second condition for keeper liability due to the flaws in the NTK. Therefore, no lawful right exists to claim unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle as they have not met the required conditions within Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012.

    This too was confirmed by Mr Greenslade, POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in page 8 of the 2015 POPLA Report:

    ''If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''

    4. BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance of photo evidence

    The BPA Code of Practice point 20.5a stipulates that:

    “When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered.”

    The parking charge notice in question contains two photographs of the vehicle. Neither of these images clearly identify the vehicle entering or leaving this car park, which is also not identifiable in the photos as of any particular location at all.

    The images have also been cropped to only display the number plate. As these are not the original images, I require ParkingEye Ltd to produce evidence of the original "un-cropped" images containing the required date and time stamp and to evidence where the photographs show the car to be when there is a lack of any marker or sign to indisputably relate these photos to the location stated.

    5. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces, there is no clear delimitations of the car park area and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

    There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd vs. Beavis' case.

    In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:

    imgur.com/a/AkMCN

    In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.

    Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

    2.bp.blogspot.com/-eYdphoIIDgE/VpbCpfSTaiI/AAAAAAAAE10/5uFjL528DgU/s640/Parking%2Bsign_001.jpg

    This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

    Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and not visible from every parking space. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.

    It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, that these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print. Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one. Furthermore, there is no clear sign of boundaries in the area for the driver to know when he/she is entering or exiting the site.

    This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

    “The signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators’ signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.”

    From the evidence seen so far, there is no clear delimitations of the car park area and the public road and the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. The operator is put to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.

    The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:

    www-archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm

    As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:

    signazon.com/help-center/sign-letter-height-visibility-chart.aspx

    “When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2” letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3” or even larger.”

    ...and the same chart is reproduced here:

    ebay.co.uk/gds/Outdoor-Dimensional-Sign-Letter-Best-Viewing-Distance-/10000000175068392/g.html

    “When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall.”

    “...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.”

    So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

    Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':

    (1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
    (2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

    The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, it is submitted that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

    This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports this argument, not the operator's case:

    bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/106.html

    This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case, who had not seen any signs/lines, had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

    So, for this appeal, the operator is put to strict proof of where the car was parked and, from photos taken in the same lighting conditions, how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, the operator is to show how the entrance and delimitations signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. It is submitted that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.

    6. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

    As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then the operator is to 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 this operator 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 it is suggested 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 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 the operator is put 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.
    • Aurelient1
    • By Aurelient1 13th Jun 17, 7:02 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Aurelient1
    Anyone?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Jun 17, 7:38 PM
    • 51,886 Posts
    • 65,532 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    OK, that's not half bad now! See, you have legs to stand on here and you will win.

    You don't need 'Dear Sir/Madam' in a POPLA appeal, as you are not posting a letter.

    a few changes, e.g. there is no such thing as a 'registered' hirer:

    As the registered hirer of the above vehicle, I wish to appeal the parking charge notice ParkingEye Ltd issued against the mentioned vehicle. I believe the parking charge notice should be cancelled based on the following grounds:
    I would also remove this point entirely because unless you are alleging it was a double dip, a lot of that is irrelevant and might take the Assessor's eye off the winning first points.

    3. No Hirer Liability <<< I would remove the entire point
    Other than that, it's good to go, and will win. Submit it as a PDF under 'OTHER' (only).
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Aurelient1
    • By Aurelient1 13th Jun 17, 8:21 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Aurelient1
    Submitted!

    Thanks a lot guys for all the knowledge I learnt on this forum!

    And as we say in French, "Longue vie à vous !"
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 13th Jun 17, 8:53 PM
    • 15,962 Posts
    • 24,778 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Longue vie à vous
    We live in hope!
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Aurelient1
    • By Aurelient1 12th Jul 17, 7:06 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Aurelient1
    Just got the answer from Popla after submitting my rebuttal of the evidence pack this morning, and:

    [

    So again thank you all!
    • Aurelient1
    • By Aurelient1 12th Jul 17, 7:10 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Aurelient1
    POPLA assessment and decision
    10/07/2017

    Verification Code

    6061597156

    DecisionSuccessful
    Assessor NameAlexandra Wilcock
    Assessor summary of operator case
    The appellant remained on site for longer than permitted.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant states as the registered hirer of the above vehicle, XX would like to appeal the Parking Charge Notice (PCN). The appellant states parking eye has failed to meet the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. The appellant states no evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the individual liable was the driver. The appellant has raised the British Parking Association Code of Practice Section 20.5a and states the operator’s images do not meet it. The appellant states the signage on the site is not clear and does not show what the sum of the parking charge is. The appellant states the operator has not provided any of evidence to demonstrate it has the appropriate landowner authority.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    The appellant has raised a number of grounds for appeal however; I will concentrate this decision on the PoFA 2012. As the driver of the vehicle was not known when the incident took place, a notice to keeper followed by a notice to hirer was issued. The notice to keeper and the notice to hirer must follow the strict process of POFA 2012. The PoFA 2012, paragraph 4 (1) states “the creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle”. Section 13 (2) goes on to state that “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.” From the evidence provided by the operator, I can see that a Notice to Keeper was issued to a hire company, followed by a Notice to Hirer. Section 14(2)(a) requires the documents referred to above to be sent together with the notice to hirer. As such, I would expect the operator to demonstrate that it provided the relevant documents to the hirer. The operator has not demonstrated that these documents were sent to the appellant as the hirer of the vehicle. As the operator has not demonstrated that it has complied with section 13 and section 14 of POFA 2012, I cannot confirm that the PCN was issued correctly. As such, the PCN was issued incorrectly.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th Jul 17, 7:14 PM
    • 51,886 Posts
    • 65,532 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Hooray, slam dunk! Well done for taking that leap of faith and trusting us, this was always winnable!

    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Edna Basher
    • By Edna Basher 12th Jul 17, 8:15 PM
    • 611 Posts
    • 1,574 Thanks
    Edna Basher
    Excellent - well done.
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

151Posts Today

2,209Users online

Martin's Twitter