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
    • ZafarAhmed
    • By ZafarAhmed 25th Nov 17, 7:22 PM
    • 3Posts
    • 0Thanks
    ZafarAhmed
    Parking stating they have sent 1st letter
    • #1
    • 25th Nov 17, 7:22 PM
    Parking stating they have sent 1st letter 25th Nov 17 at 7:22 PM
    Hi All,


    I am hoping someone can help me against a parking eye charge. I will clarify the points below and then hope this will be enough information for someone to help and give me direction.

    • Date of parking event 20/09/17
    • The First and ONLY letter received by me was on the SENT on the 7/10/17.
    • Due to this i sent an appeal to parking eye that there is no keeper liability
    • As notice to keeper was not sent within 14 days and BUT a parking charge notice after 14days.
    Below is the online appeal I made to parking eye.
    Your Notice to Keeper was not received within 14 days so keeper liability does not apply. The only correspondence I have received is a parking charge notice reminder. Which is after 14 days of the date of the event.
    Due to this your 'Notice' fails to comply with the POFA so there can be no keeper liability.
    I have proof that I was 30/40 miles away at around 30mins before the car entered the car park. This proof includes witnesses and geo location/meta data, which can only relate to me. I cannot be the driver of the car.
    You have failed to comply with the requirements of POFA 2012 to hold me, the keeper, liable for any alleged charges for the referenced event. Please contact the driver.
    There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 or cancel the charge. I will only appeal further if you reject my appeal and supply a popla code.

    This charge is based on contract law, and tickets are issued for a breach of the contract. A contract would be formed by parking in the car park and through signage that would communicate the terms and conditions. This cannot apply to me.
    Considering all the above, you have no claim against me so please remove my details from your system and confirm within 21 days that this has been done. Further actions against me can only cause further distress to me, so I have also given notice under Section 10 DPA.


    I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.

    If I am forced to go through any further appeal processes I will be lodging complaints with every business which use the car parking facilities. These complaints will have a copy of this email, and will be sent in every form ( letter, social media etc) possible and will include evidence which I mentioned above to prove that I am being harassed over a baseless contract. As this proof includes pictures of my baby, you can appreciate these are personal and I do not wish to send these.

    They refused this appeal and supplied me with a POPLA code but did not address anything I raised in the appeal, the did not inform me if they had sent a letter within 14days. I made an appeal on the POPLA website, which was basically a version of the above appeal.

    The Notice to Keeper was not received within 14 days so keeper liability does not apply. The only correspondence I have received is a parking charge notice reminder. Which is after 14 days of the date of the event.
    Due to this the ‘Notice' fails to comply with the POFA so there can be no keeper liability.
    I stated this In my response to parking eye and they have not given me proof that a notice to keeper was sent.
    I have proof that I was 30/40 miles away at around 30mins before the car entered the car park. This proof includes witnesses and geo location/meta data, which can only relate to me. This is from photos I was taking on my phone of my and my 10month baby while I was at home on maternity leave. I can not be the driver of the car.

    Parking eye have failed to comply with the requirements of POFA 2012 to hold me, the keeper, liable for any alleged charges for the referenced event. I have advised them to contact the driver.

    I also advised them they must either rely on the POFA 2012 or cancel the charge.

    This charge is based on contract law, and tickets are issued for a breach of the contract. A contract would be formed by parking in the car park and through signage that would communicate the terms and conditions. This can not apply to me as stated I have proof that I was not the driver. I also have asked them send me proof of any correspondence to me within 14 days of the car being parked.

    In their rejection letter to me none of the above was address at all.

    On 22/11/17 I received an email from POPLA, stating parking eye has loaded evidence and I have 7 days to provide comments regarding the evidence they have supplied.
    Parking Eye Ltd has now uploaded its evidence via our portal. This is now available for you to view by clicking here.

    You have seven days from the date of this correspondence to provide comments on the evidence uploaded by Parking Eye Ltd.


    Please note that these comments must relate to the grounds of appeal you submitted when first lodging your appeal with POPLA, we do not accept new grounds of appeal at this stage.

    In the evidence supplied they have the following;

    History 20/09/2017
    Date of event
    System check/manual check identified breach of terms and conditions, prior to DVLA request
    27/09/2017
    Request queued to DVLA for keeper details
    28/09/2017
    DVLA response received - Success
    28/09/2017
    Parking Charge Letter Issued - Letter1 - Ltr01-217
    07/10/2017
    Parking Charge Letter Issued - Letter2 - Ltr02-217
    12/10/2017
    26/10/2017
    26/10/2017
    Letter Issued - Website Appeal Response
    Processed website appeal received from motorist, please see Section E
    Check undertaken to locate vehicle registration on paid parking system (Evidence G)
    26/10/2017
    Letter Issued - Holding Response
    31/10/2017
    Letter Issued - Unsuccessful POPLA PP Not Purchased with FAQs


    This shows and has a copy of a letter which they state was sent on 28/09/17, within the 14days of the parking event. I never received this letter. They do not have any proof they sent this letter to me.
    It also states the following

    Please be advised the date of the Parking Event was 20/09/2017 and the Parking Charge Notice was issued on 28/09/2017, therefore we believe that we have issued the Parking Charge Notice in accordance with Paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (2012).
    Postage is at the behest of the postal service and therefore any delays are outside of ParkingEye’s control.

    I am not sure how to proceed now. Just to summarise the facts above.
    • Date of parking event 20/09/17
    • The First and ONLY letter received by me was on the SENT on the 7/10/17.
    • Due to this i sent an appeal to parking eye that there is no keeper liability
    • As notice to keeper was not sent within 14 days and BUT a parking charge notice after 14days.
    • In the POPLA evidence supplied by Parking eye they show they DID send a letter with 14days.
    • This letter is dated 28/09/17.
    • They say its delays or not receiving he first letter is outside of their control.
    • There was no delay I never got this letter.
    • I was not the driver.
    • I have photo’s from my phone which has geo location of me taking picture of my baby while I was at home on maternity leave.

    I hoping someone can help me respond to the evidence sent my Parking eye to POPLA.
    If any other information is need please let me know.

    I have till this Wednesday to respond (29/11/17) i appericate not much time .
    Thank you

    Sameena
Page 1
    • HeatonGuy
    • By HeatonGuy 25th Nov 17, 7:42 PM
    • 79 Posts
    • 46 Thanks
    HeatonGuy
    • #2
    • 25th Nov 17, 7:42 PM
    • #2
    • 25th Nov 17, 7:42 PM
    A letter sent is deemed served unless the contrary is proved. But, they need to prove it was, in fact sent.

    So ask them for the record from their mail provider that the letter was, in fact, correctly stamped, addressed and posted on 28/09/2017 (before close of business), and for the tracking from the same source to show when it was received by Royal Mail.

    ParkingEye do not post their own letters, they use a fulfilment house to do so, and they normally use the "three day" service which means a letter dated 29th will be produced on 30th and posted then. This is equivalent to Second Class mail. If it's second class, that takes it past POFA service requirements of two WORKING days.

    Remember, the onus of proof falls upon them, so question this, and ask them to PROVE posting, and in any case, rebut receipt.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 25th Nov 17, 10:26 PM
    • 1,164 Posts
    • 1,195 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    • #3
    • 25th Nov 17, 10:26 PM
    • #3
    • 25th Nov 17, 10:26 PM
    Exactly as above

    They cannot use the excuse that the Royal Mail is outside their control. Pofa requires that the notice is served within the deadline, not that it is sent within the deadline.
    • ZafarAhmed
    • By ZafarAhmed 26th Nov 17, 1:55 PM
    • 3 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    ZafarAhmed
    • #4
    • 26th Nov 17, 1:55 PM
    • #4
    • 26th Nov 17, 1:55 PM
    thank you heatonguy and nosferatu.


    I just to make sure i am doing the right thing. As you can see from my intially appeal i did not raise anything else apart from the fact the NTK was not sent within 14 days.


    If they have proof that this was sent within the deadline, how would i move forward from that point?


    Also the letter is dated 28/09/17, so if they had acutally posted that the next day which would be friday, the earliest it would of reached me would of been monday right but if it was a 3 day service that would mean it would have not got to me before the 14days were up anyway?


    considering the above should i mention my initally appeal was on the basis i only got one letter dated 7/10/17 and i now would like to make further considerations regarding appealing and if so what should i do these at.


    The reason i would say i would want to make further consideration would be again PE did not inform me until the POPLA appeal was processed that they had SENT a letter within the first 14days.


    I intially thought this would be an easy appeal to win as i honeslty had only recieved one letter, dated outside the 14days.


    i am now worried that i might lost this and that is the reason PE have taken this, this far .


    again thank you for all your help
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 26th Nov 17, 7:37 PM
    • 1,164 Posts
    • 1,195 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    • #5
    • 26th Nov 17, 7:37 PM
    • #5
    • 26th Nov 17, 7:37 PM
    You cannot add new points of appeal

    You strong,y need to remind popla that pe have not proven when the letter was sent, nor when it entered the normal course of post and not their bulk carrier. There is only presumption of service once thy have shown they sent the documents, and they have not done so. A computer printout merely asserting otherwise is not proof of anything.
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 28th Nov 17, 6:41 PM
    • 741 Posts
    • 1,377 Thanks
    Johnersh
    • #6
    • 28th Nov 17, 6:41 PM
    • #6
    • 28th Nov 17, 6:41 PM
    The Court invented the Certificate of Service for this eventuality. It contains a statement of truth and it should be signed and verified by a named individual. Simple.
    • logician
    • By logician 28th Nov 17, 6:55 PM
    • 90 Posts
    • 43 Thanks
    logician
    • #7
    • 28th Nov 17, 6:55 PM
    • #7
    • 28th Nov 17, 6:55 PM
    The Court invented the Certificate of Service for this eventuality. It contains a statement of truth and it should be signed and verified by a named individual. Simple.
    Originally posted by Johnersh
    Great - except this is not at court yet this is a POPLA evidence pack the OP is dealing with
    • logician
    • By logician 28th Nov 17, 7:01 PM
    • 90 Posts
    • 43 Thanks
    logician
    • #8
    • 28th Nov 17, 7:01 PM
    • #8
    • 28th Nov 17, 7:01 PM
    [FONT=Times New Roman]


    In the evidence supplied they have the following;

    History 20/09/2017
    Date of event
    System check/manual check identified breach of terms and conditions, prior to DVLA request
    27/09/2017
    Request queued to DVLA for keeper details
    28/09/2017
    DVLA response received - Success
    28/09/2017
    Parking Charge Letter Issued - Letter1 - Ltr01-217
    07/10/2017

    Parking Charge Letter Issued - Letter2 - Ltr02-217
    12/10/2017
    26/10/2017
    26/10/2017
    Letter Issued - Website Appeal Response
    Processed website appeal received from motorist, please see Section E
    Check undertaken to locate vehicle registration on paid parking system (Evidence G)
    26/10/2017
    Letter Issued - Holding Response
    31/10/2017
    Letter Issued - Unsuccessful POPLA PP Not Purchased with FAQs




    [B][FONT=Calibri]Please be advised the date of the Parking Event was 20/09/2017 and the Parking Charge Notice was issued on 28/09/2017, t

    Sameena
    Originally posted by ZafarAhmed
    Contradictory statements in the list history to their written statement.

    According to that the first letter was indeed issue 07/10 and they got the DVLA keeper details back on 28/9
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 28th Nov 17, 7:07 PM
    • 741 Posts
    • 1,377 Thanks
    Johnersh
    • #9
    • 28th Nov 17, 7:07 PM
    • #9
    • 28th Nov 17, 7:07 PM
    Great - except this is not at court yet this is a POPLA evidence pack the OP is dealing with
    Err yes. But that doesn't mean that they can't knock together the form do a declaration and let that be the end of it. There are no rules as to when it can be used, just rules relating to when it definitely should.

    More unrealistic is expecting a commercial entity sending volume post to queue at a post office counter to get a receipt for individual items of mail in case a mail provider who they pay delivers late or someone challenges them.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 28th Nov 17, 7:12 PM
    • 6,467 Posts
    • 8,290 Thanks
    beamerguy
    ZafarAhmed

    For your safety and security on this forum, NEVER
    respond to a PM (private message) from a member
    with less than 1000 posts.

    If you do, it's at your own peril
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 28th Nov 17, 8:13 PM
    • 741 Posts
    • 1,377 Thanks
    Johnersh
    Or, to put it another way:

    Beamerguy may drive a Mercedes
    Logician may not always be logical
    CouponMad may or may not collect coupons; and
    the HeatOnGuy may not be qualified to fix your boiler.

    You get the point. It's an open forum. Take what advice you will, make sure you're happy with it before you take any decisions and the very best of luck to you...
    • ZafarAhmed
    • By ZafarAhmed 29th Nov 17, 11:58 AM
    • 3 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    ZafarAhmed
    Thanks eveyone for you comments.


    let you know what the responce is from Popla/PE.
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

2,283Posts Today

7,125Users online

Martin's Twitter