Parking charge notice - your help please

Ken_Masters

Hi all,

Firstly I just wanted to say a massive thank you to Coupon-mad and Umkomaas. You guys don't have to post the info and give the assistance that you do but yet you do and I'm very very thankful.

Ok the facts:
- parking charge notice received from Parking Eye to me, the registered keeper, for a 2 hours plus parking time in Morrisons car park
- the notice uses a number plate recognition camera and gives pics and times
- I'm told that this a car park where you pay £1 for 2 hours free parking
- I say "I'm told this" as I wasn't driving the car on the day, another insured person from my family was.
- I have asked my family member to see if they can find the ticket stub from the day, no Morrison receipts are available
- dates: the date of actual receipt of the notice from Parking eye is 21 days from the date of the alleged contravention. The date of issue of the letter is 17 days after the alleged contravention. So basically it took them 17 days to get round to writing up and posting their notice, 21 days in total before it got to the doorstep.

My q:
- should I send a simple appeal in the format of registered keeper to parking eye or should I simply write and tell them to bog off given their own letter evidences that it took them 17 days after the date of the event to formulate and send the NTK effectively putting them outside the 14 period Umkomaas mentions?

Thanks

Stroma

You use the appeal wording in the sticky thread by coupon mad, but you could add this;

4) The Notice to Keeper breaches the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 by being issued beyond the statuary 14 days.

And leave it at that, send off with free proof of postage from the post office.

Umkomaas

Whilst prescribed dates of issue of NtKs are part and parcel of PoFA 2012 (the LAW) PPCs do play fast and loose with them, POPLA doesn't give them that much accord, the BPA seem to do little to 'whip' their members into line on this and it definitely flies over the head of most Judges. Sad, but true, so prioritise the position of this in the context of taking your case forward.

You can mention it as part of your eventual POPLA appeal (as, legally, it renders any pursuit of the RK inappropriate) but it's not one to rely on. GPEOL/signage/proprietary interest in the land/no authority are all far better contenders for kicking this into the long grass.

Ken_Masters

Hi all,

Sent off the template letter which declines the invitation to pay and asks to invoke the appeal process as all liability is denied. (with proof of posting).
Got a letter back today which didn't acknowledge my letter at all, simply the same guff again adding a para that the driver is required to pay or appeal the parking charge.
Should I send the same letter again telling them that they have already had my response and here it is attached again or ignore??

Thanks in advance

Coupon-mad

Do not ignore ParkingEye.

Reply and tell them that their only option was to consider your appeal and send you a POPLA code if rejecting - which you now require or you will be reporting their non-compliance to the BPA Ltd.

Ken_Masters

Thanks Coupon Mad
I used the online option - that way I got a screen print showing that the appeal had been received to go with my certificate of posting for the first occasion!
Will report them if I get a third letter without any acknowledgement to the appeals made.
Cheers

Ken_Masters

OK can update: received a letter finally acknowledging my correspondence. I'm a little unsure how to proceed as I'm a little puzzled by the position they're taking!

The PPC basically states that it is a car park management business contracted by private land owners to manage its useage in line with the landowner's directions.
They then go on to say that:
- all invoices issued to the PPC in relation to any loss, cost or expense in relation to payment/appeal/any other issue are rejected.
- further there is no legally binding contract with them, the PPC, so my invalid invoice is rejected??

Hence my puzzlement. The template letter has been sent to them wherein I haven't "invoiced" them for anything and they again haven't acknowledged my appeal or made any reference to POPLA or given me a code (unless its the ref on its own at the top of the page which it cant be as the word POPLA isn't in the letter!).

Lastly, there is no mention of the PCN still being due?? Is this end of the matter then??

Would be grateful if someone could shed some light here - I'm tempted to write back and say - no Mr PPC, see my previous correspondence, your invalid invoice is rejected!!

thanks

Coupon-mad

Oh that's the 'rejection of invalid invoice' letter which is often swiftly followed by a proper reply - often sent on the same day. Basically they consider the second part of my template appeal to be an 'invoice' and they like to reject it first. Later in the week you'll get a reply I expect, finally with your POPLA code.

Ken_Masters

On to the next stage, going to have going to have a look at the popla stuff on the site and form a personalised template for you guys to have a look at.

Coupon-mad, I think I'm falling in love with you!
:A

Coupon-mad

Lucky I am female then! Not sure my husband would be chuffed at the attention but he was happy when someone sent me an Amazon voucher the other week (no I am not trawling for Amazon vouchers MSE!!). And I spent it towards some of 'our' fave perfume!!

Ken_Masters

Coupon- mad, you should be showered with Amazon vouchers

Ok going to use the "throw everything at them" template with 2 main changes:

1) No genuine pre-estimate of loss
This car park provides a facility for purchase of a ticket for £1 for 2 hours, ParkingEye have unlawfully levied a charge of £100 for an alleged overstay of XX minutes. There was no damage nor obstruction caused so there can be no loss arising from the incident. ParkingEye notices allege 'breach of terms/failure to comply' and as such, the landowner/occupier (not their agent) can only pursue liquidated damages directly flowing from the parking event. Given that ParkingEye charge the same lump sum for a 15 minute overstay as they would for 150 minutes, and the same fixed charge applies to any alleged contravention (whether serious/damaging, or trifling as in my case), it is clear there has been no regard paid to establishing that this charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

7) Breach of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
Finally, it is worth noting that the date of the alleged incident was 23rd of May 2014. ParkingEye’s first notice to keeper is dated 10th of May 2014 with actual receipt of the letter taking place on the 14th of May 2014.
In short, ParkingEye’s notice to keeper breaches the Protection of Freedoms 2012 by being well beyond the statutory 14 days.

thanks for reading in advance:

change and addition look ok?