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:
Internet Explorer
Google Chrome
Mozilla Firefox

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@.

Main site > Forums > Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking > Parking Eye PCN Tower Road Newquay
Go to page of 2
  • 642 views
  • 21 replies
Search
  • FIRST POST
    • User avatar
      User avatar
      jackg1988
      • 11Posts
      • 10Thanks
    • jackg1988
    • By jackg1988 22nd Jun 17, 4:56 PM
    • 11Posts
    • 10Thanks

      What's this?

    jackg1988
    Parking Eye PCN Tower Road Newquay
    • #1
    • 22nd Jun 17, 4:56 PM
    Parking Eye PCN Tower Road Newquay 22nd Jun 17 at 4:56 PM
    Hello everyone!

    Sorry for starting a new thread but I've read loads of information and not sure where mine exactly lies.

    My company have received a PCN from Parking Eye for the vehicle which I use and I am pretty sure I can appeal. Here's there grounds for the notice:

    Car entered the car park at 15:22PM (we actually bought a ticket at 15:28 so there's the grace period argument gone!)
    Car left the car park at 18:47PM
    Tariff paid was for 3 hours only.
    Overstayed by 24mins (6 of these were prior to purchasing the ticket).

    I believe I have a couple of avenues to pursue here:

    This has been addressed to my company NOT the driver.
    The event happened on 21/4/17. The notice was issued on 1/6/17. The notice was received on 6/6/17 - this totals 41 days from event to issue!
    There were two children under the age of 3 present which required a lot of time to take out of the car and put back in the car as well as loading the pram - should a relevant grace period not have been applied?

    Note: there is no mention of the POFA 2012 comment where the keeper will be liable after 29 days.

    My question is - should I approach this with the blue write up on the "Newbies" thread?
    Should I just bat it back as being 41 days to notification - however they have more than likely contacted Audi, who have handed over my companies details so does this 41 days still apply?
    If I log in on the PE website it calls it the "Driver Portal" - this isn't some clever ploy to get you to admitting to being the driver is it?

    Thanks in advance guys. I think what some of you are doing on this forum is nothing short of heroic! Not all heroes wear capes eh?

    Cheers Jack
    Last edited by jackg1988; 22-06-2017 at 7:54 PM.

    Sorry!

    There are currently no thanks for this post.

Page 2
    • User avatar
      User avatar
      Edna Basher
      • 540Posts
      • 1,412Thanks
    • Edna Basher
    • By Edna Basher 13th Jul 17, 11:37 AM
    • 540 Posts
    • 1,412 Thanks

      What's this?

    Edna Basher
    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.......]

    Users saying Thanks (2)

    • User avatar
      User avatar
      Coupon-mad
      • 47,975Posts
      • 61,429Thanks
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Jul 17, 3:55 PM
    • 47,975 Posts
    • 61,429 Thanks

      What's this?

    Coupon-mad
    #2 and #3 are already written as templates in the NEWBIES thread post #3 about POPLA stage, Jack.
    “
    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.
    ”
    and #4 can be the template about 'the appellant has not been shown to be the individual liable'.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    Users saying Thanks (1)

Go to page of 2
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

8,306Users online

Martin's Twitter

  • Byebye! I'm about to stop work & twitter, to instead spend glorious time with Mrs & mini MSE. Wishing u a lovely summer. See u in 10 days.

  • WARNING Did you start Uni in or after 2012? The interest's rising to 6.1%; yet it doesnt work like you think. See https://t.co/IQ8f0Vyetu RT

  • RT @JanaBeee: @MartinSLewis Boris is the anomaly (coffee), the others are versions of normal (beer). Lots of same candidates = vote share d?

    • Follow Martin
NewsBlog