Parking Eye PCN Tower Road Newquay

jackg1988 · 5 July 2017 at 4:04PM

Hello!

Low and behold PE have rejected my appeal, so now I am going to appeal to POPLA with the same appeal above.

Do you think anything needs adding to this?

Thanks in advance

Redx · 5 July 2017 at 4:11PM

personally , I would not use a one argument appeal at POPLA

I suggest you read anything by edna basher, plus post #3 of the NEWBIES sticky thread

I would be adding appeal points to it , like no contract , poor and inadequate signage , BPA CoP errors , NTK errors , POFA2012 failures etc

I would start the appeal with the issues mentioned in the initial appeal though

jackg1988 · 5 July 2017 at 4:15PM

Cheers Redx! Quick reply is thoroughly appreciated!

jackg1988 · 5 July 2017 at 4:44PM

Okay, so after searching through some of Edna Basher's posts, I stumbled across one similar to mine by LemonBerry where Coupon-Mad advises them not to "over egg the pudding" by going into too much detail about signage. In the above I have mentioned that the signage is inadequate and that PE are not the landowner (as well as my main argument about only being the keeper). Is it your opinion that I need to expand on these points?

Edna_Basher · 5 July 2017 at 5:56PM

LemonBerry was only at the first stage of making their initial contact with ParkingEye. You're now at the next stage - your "POPLA pudding" will need plenty of egg

Beware - we've just been on the receiving end of a dodgy POPLA decision where the assessor somehow managed to conclude that the operator (not ParkingEye) had complied with POFA even though their Notice to Hirer was very obviously non-compliant.

In your game of assessor roulette you will need to use Fisher Price language to explain to your appointed POPLA assessor why ParkingEye's Notice to Hirer did not comply. I'll see if I can come up with some appropriate words.

ggoodge26 · 6 July 2017 at 5:45PM

hey, does anyone know the tariffs for this car park? trying to work out if I overstayed and cannot find anything anywhere about how much the car park is per hour?

any help would be appreciated

jackg1988 · 7 July 2017 at 8:57AM

Edna Basher, thank you so much! That is not good news though is it that the assessor has moved the goal posts! I hope the case you're referring to and mine are not the start of a trend!! If it's easy enough, could you provide the link to this failed appeal out of interest?

ggoodge - I didn't manage to find anything referring to the rates on this carpark. I was sure that the rate stopped at 6! Start a new thread and see if someone can help you out. Also, before anyone else tells you....make sure you read the Newbies thread because it'll just frustrate the people that are trying to help you if you haven't!

jackg1988 · 13 July 2017 at 9:16AM

Hello Edner Basher, have you had chance to make a more simplistic reply for this type of appeal? Sorry to be cheeky I just don't like it hanging over my head like a £100 axe! haha

jackg1988 · 13 July 2017 at 9:20AM

ps. I've just seen that reject appeal for the meters not working and the driver should have not parked there until they could comply with PE's T&Cs?!?! !!!!!!! How ridiculous!

Edna_Basher · 13 July 2017 at 11:37AM

Hi Jack

As promised, here are some words for your company to include in their submission to POPLA. We always avoid using the word "appeal" because we feel that this would give undeserved credibility to the PPC by suggesting that they have some form of authority. Instead we prefer to use the word "dispute".

Dear Sir

POPLA Ref 606xxxxxxx - Vehicle Registration [AA11AAA]
ParkingEye Limited: Parking Charge Notice [xxxxxx/xxxxxx]

We write to lodge details of our dispute with ParkingEye Limited (“ParkingEye”) in respect of the above-detailed Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) issued to our company [ABC Ltd] (“[ABC]”) in respect of an alleged breach of terms and conditions of parking at Tower Road, Newquay on [Date of Incident].

We confirm that [ABC] is the vehicle’s hirer for the purpose of the corresponding definition under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) and we set out below why [ABC] is not liable for this parking charge:

1) ParkingEye failed to comply with the strict requirements of POFA
2) ParkingEye has no standing or authority to pursue charges or to form contracts with drivers using this particular car park.
3) The car park signage was inadequate.
4) [Insert other points as required…..]

1) ParkingEye failed to comply with the strict requirements of POFA

In the case of a PCN issued in respect of a hire vehicle, in order to have the right to use the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA to claim unpaid parking charges from a vehicle’s hirer, an operator must:

1) deliver a Notice to Keeper to the vehicle-hire firm in full compliance with POFA, Schedule 4, Paragraph 8 or 9 (as the case may be);
2) be provided with the documents specified under POFA, Schedule 4, Paragraph 13 (2) and;
3) deliver a Notice to Hirer to the vehicle’s hirer in full compliance with POFA, Schedule 4, Paragraph 14.

POPLA has promised that our case will be independently reviewed by one of its professional assessors taking into consideration the relevant law, guidance and standards and the BPA Code of Practice. The requirements set out in Schedule 4 of POFA are quite straightforward for any reasonable professional to understand and we expect that all POPLA assessors shall have a clear understanding of this particular piece of relevant law. It should therefore be very obvious to POPLA that ParkingEye has failed to comply with Schedule 4 of POFA.

Non-Compliant Notice to Hirer

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

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 did not provide us with copy of any of these documents.

Indeed, ParkingEye’s Notice to Hirer makes no mention of POFA and does not seek to suggest that the hirer could ever be liable for the Parking Charge. Consequently, ParkingEye has failed to comply with the requirements of Paragraph 14(5) of Schedule 4 of POFA including:

Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 14(5)(a) ParkingEye’s PCN did not inform the hirer that by virtue of this paragraph any unpaid parking charges (being parking charges specified in the Notice to Keeper) may be recovered from the hirer;
Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 14(5)(b) ParkingEye’s PCN did not refer the hirer to the information contained in the Notice to Keeper (indeed, the PCN did not even refer to the Notice to Keeper);
Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 14(5)(c) ParkingEye’s PCN did not warn the hirer that if, after the period of 21 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to hirer is given, the amount of unpaid parking charges referred to in the notice to keeper under Paragraph 8(2)(f) or 9(2)(f) (as the case may be) has not been paid in full, the creditor will (if any applicable requirements are met) have the right to recover from the hirer so much of that amount as remains unpaid.

Non-Compliant Notice to Keeper

Given that ParkingEye’s Notice to Hirer does not seek to claim unpaid parking charges from the hirer, we have good reason to believe the original PCN issued to the lease company will have been ParkingEye’s “non-POFA” version of its Notice to Keeper (i.e. the version which does not seek to claim unpaid parking charges from the vehicle’s keeper).

It is clear that ParkingEye has forfeited any right to hold the vehicle’s hirer liable for this PCN and for this reason alone, its claim against [ABC] must be determined as being invalid.

[Insert other points.......]

Parking Eye PCN Tower Road Newquay

Comments

Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

🚀 Getting Started

Categories

Is this how you want to be seen?

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free