Parking Eye Charge Notice

xlator

Hi,

Apologies for the radio silence on my part, I was away last week.

On futher investigation, I found that the car park was operated not by a local council but by a National Park Authority.

I sent off the 50p cheque along with the letter to the authority, and the other letter to Parking Eye as advised.

I have today received a reply (not signed by anyone) from PE claiming that I informed them that I was not the driver, and that I didn't tell them who the driver was. Having re-read the letter, I didn't explicitly say that I WAS the driver, but nor did I say that I WASN'T the driver.

Any thoughts?

They're clearly trying to do me on a technicality.

I haven't seen the letter (my wife opened it at home) - will post their reply in full this evening when I get home.

Thanks again for your help!

zzzLazyDaisy

Thanks for getting back to us. It will be interesting to see PE's letter.

Just to be clear:

Under POFA 2012

• you ARE entitled to deal with this matter as the RK
• you are NOT required to identify the driver
• PE is NOT entitled to demand that you identify the driver
• PE is NOT entitled to refuse to deal with your appeal as RK
• If PE does pull those stunts they ARE in the firing line for a complaint to BPA & DVLA

hth

Daisy

xlator

Hi Daisy,

So here's the latest:

- I received a letter from the National Park Authority concerned informing me that "under the circumstances" they have instructed Parking Eye to cancel the parking charge notice.... They are yet to cash the 50p cheque, but the tactic was a winner... victory!!!

- I'm not done with Parking Eye yet though. In light of your guidance in your last post, I've posted below the exact wording of the letter I received from them:

"You have stated that you were not the driver of the vehicle at the date and time of the breach of the terms and conditions of the car park, but you have not indicated who was.

You have already been notified that under section 9(2)(b) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 that that driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay this parking charge in full. As we do not know the driver's name or current postal address, if you were not the driver at the time, you should tell us the name and the current postal address.

You are warned that if, after 29 days from the date given (which is presumed to be the second working day after the Date Issued), the Parking Charge has not been paid in full and we do not know both the name and current address of the driver, we have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from you, the registered keeper. This warning is given to you under paragraph 9(2)(f) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and is subject to our complying with the applicable conditions under schedule 4 of that Act."

Apart from the appalling English, syntax errors and inconsistent capitalisation (I'm a professional writer and translator so I can't help but baulk at poor English...), their assertions are also inaccurate.

I did NOT tell them that I wasn't the driver. I just didn't tell them who was. I specifically said that I was the registered keeper.

So... are they breaking any rules? If so, I'd love to drag them across the coals for this...

Let's have some more "fun" with them :-)

zzzLazyDaisy

First, well done for getting the charge cancelled by the landowner. You just earned yourself a place in Coupon's Hall of Fame!!!

Interesting to note that enclosing a cheque to the landowner and emphasising the duty to mitigate might have had some influence.

Second, re PE's letter - I don't like the way this para is phrased

You have already been notified that under section 9(2)(b) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 that that driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay this parking charge in full. As we do not know the driver's name or current postal address, if you were not the driver at the time, you should tell us the name and the current postal address.

As, on its own, it could be read as saying that your are required to disclose the driver's details under POFA.

However, when read in conjunction with the next para, it does then clarify that if you choose not to disclose the driver's identity, then liability rests with you, as the RK, which is correct.

So although I don't like to admit it, I reckon they are just about on the right side of the line here. But wait and see what the other regulars say about this.

Daisy

Stroma

I don't think its right as they are saying the driver must basically pay, but that suggests that there is no appeals process for the driver.