Help with ParkingEye PCN

m10116chez

Dear PCN fighters,

This is my first post here, however, I have already made this post on Pepipoo as I am keen to have as wide a response as possible.

My situation;
I received a PCN and ignored it up to the point that ParkingEye sent a "Letter before County Court Claim".
Following advise from the forums I responded stating that their letter was not fully compliant with the guidelines of 'Practice Direction' and Pre-action Conduct.
I also wrote to the land owner asking for the charges to be dropped. They sent me some details about the signs but said they have to charge because of a Section 106 agreement enforced by local government.
ParkingEye responded with a generic letter listing their FAQs
I responded saying that their letter hadn't addressed the issues I raised and that the "Letter before County Court Claim" was still not compliant (as above).
A real person seems to have written back this time saying they believe that their "Letter before County Court Claim" is fully compliant. It goes on to ask me to provide any evidence that the driver did not break the terms and conditions stipulated on the signage.

What should my next steps be please?

Thanks.

Coupon-mad

Have a look at this thread: which was pulled back from the brink of court to POPLA:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/63990978#Comment_63990978

There's a letter I wrote in there which you could adapt. But I am interested in this:

They sent me some details about the signs but said they have to charge because of a Section 106 agreement enforced by local government.

http://www.pas.gov.uk/3-community-infrastructure-levy-cil/-/journal_content/56/332612/4090701/ARTICLE

Can you show us this wording of that reply please?

I am wondering if you could add an argument that the landowner has confirmed that this site is subject to statutory control under a Section 106 agreement enforced under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). If so then possibly you could add a contention to your version of the next letter to PE, saying ''land will not be ‘relevant land’ for the purposes of Schedule 4 if there is statute which imposes liability for the parking in any way of a vehicle on that land. ''

Paragraph 3(3) of the Schedule defines what ‘subject to statutory control’ means.
‘ For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(c) the parking of a vehicle on land is “subject to statutory control” if any statutory provision imposes a liability (whether criminal or civil, and whether in the form of a fee or charge or a penalty of any kind) in respect of the parking on that land of vehicles generally or of vehicles of a description that includes the vehicle in question.’

I am not sure if it's worth looking into - this is not as cut and dried as the Southampton Quay Byelaws situation! But please show us the reply from the landowner.