PCN from 2013 received this week...

EverestRM

Morning all,

I'm a new poster and I've read the stickys but have a query about this PCN.

I received via post a PCN from parkingeye this week relating to a 10min overstay, in a car park the driver uses regularly, over a year ago!

Now the catch is that they sent the original PCN to my old address and they have only just found my new address. Obviously I don't have the original letters, but being such a kind company they are willing to start the process again with the original PCN/NTK.

Question is should I appeal as normal like the stickys recommend or is their a better way considering the time delay?

Thanks in advance

Redx

as they have up to 6 years to pursue the driver , treat this as normal but due to the time difference you can allege POFA 2012 doesnt apply and they should pursue the driver (who you wont mention or give up)

check the paperwork to see if POFA 2010 has been alleged (which is why they are chasing the RK)

do not ignore this NTK , but as pofa 2012 doesnt apply then you can easily use that as a small part of your lengthy popla appeal to get it thrown out by popla (although not a gpeol will usually sway popla)

use the template letter but add a point about this pofa 2012 issue , writing as RK and never implying who was driving (even if you knew)

ps:- alter your first post and remove the word I from it

you really meant THE DRIVER uses this car park regularly , no first person terminology should be used in these "legal" cases

so its

I received via post a PCN from parkingeye this week relating to a 10min overstay, in a car park the driver uses regularly, over a year ago!

too easy to trip oneself up in writing a letter or a story

at least you didnt use the f word like a lot of newbies use , lol

EverestRM

Thanks Redx,

Yep they 'notify" me under paragraph 9 (2)(b) of POFA 2012 that the driver is required to pay the charge.

allege POFA 2012 doesnt apply and they should pursue the driver (who you wont mention or give up)

Just leave it at that?

Redx

nope , use the template letter from the newbies thread

add a point 4) mentioning that due to the time lag POFA 2012 doesnt apply to the registered keeper and that they should pursue the driver, who you are under no obligation to name

do not name the driver, do not imply who was driving , do not use the word I in any correspondence , so always use the term , THE DRIVER , if you catch my drift ?

see posts #9 and #14 here https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4987821

Hot_Bring

Probably need to be a little careful here - you mention the original PCN went to your old address. PE might be able to claim POFA compliance if the original PCN was delivered in time. Especially if they can prove that the DVLA records showed your old address at the time they applied.

Redx

ok , in that case maybe just send the standard template letter and see what transpires

EverestRM

I will go with that then, cheers guys.

I don't know of its been mentioned before but parkingeye limits the appeal to 3000 characters on the online form so if sending the template its going to be good old snail mail.

Umkomaas

If you need to send it email you can trim out the bits about personal costs etc.

If you're snail-mailing it get a free Certificate of Posting from your PO; no need to be paying for 'Signed For'.

Coupon-mad

EverestRM wrote: »

I will go with that then, cheers guys.

I don't know of its been mentioned before but parkingeye limits the appeal to 3000 characters on the online form so if sending the template its going to be good old snail mail.

Could have just removed the 'take formal note' blustery bit about personal costs.

EverestRM

Evening all,

I'm at the POPLA stage of an appeal against a parkingeye PCN.

I'm struggling a wee bit with the signage paragraph.

Having received this PCN in june 2013 (at an old address) the driver cannot recall the signage situation at the time. Currently the signs seem to cover most of the points raised in the template appeal.

Some are high up on poles or behind bushes but there are also signs by the entrances to the shops on the retail park. It would, however, be impossible to read these upon driving in to the car park whilst paying full attention to the road.

the entrance sign does say "managed by" parkingeye, but again this is minute and impossible to read when driving in.

Here is what i have so far...

[ 3) The signage was not readable on entrance so there was no valid contract formed between ParkingEye and the driver

Given that the entrance road from which the car park is accessed falls into the 15mph approach speed in accordance with the BPA CoP Appendix B (June 2013), the lack of a clear indication of charges being applicable to a ‘Reasonable Person’ driving past the sign is insufficient to form any contract.

The mention on the entrance sign that the site is “Managed By” ParkingEye is so small that any “reasonable person” driving past this sign in moving or even stationary traffic would not be able to read it.

I contend that the signs and any core parking terms ParkingEye are relying upon were too small for any driver to see, read or understand. I request that POPLA check the Operator's evidence and signage map/photos from June 2013 on this point and compare the signs to the BPA Code of Practice requirements. I contend that the signs on this land (wording, position, clarity and frequency) do not comply and fail to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach, as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011 and Waltham Forest v Vine [CCRTF 98/1290/B2]

The only signs in the vicinity of the space the driver used are up on poles or on obscure areas of walls behind foliage (which is not a 'sign' nor does it communicate full contractual terms & conditions). Any upright signs were shrouded in darkness/shadow and were not seen by the occupants of the car.

Unreadable signage breaches Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice which states that terms on entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead. This would include the signs being lit, low and clear enough to read as above and not covered by vegetation. A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms beforehand. The driver was unaware of any charges related to this car park. Nothing about this Operator's onerous inflated 'parking charges' was sufficiently prominent and it is clear that the requirements for forming a contract (i.e. consideration flowing between the two parties, offer, acceptance and fairness and transparency of terms offered in good faith) were not satisfied. ]

Any advice appreciated. Thanks in advance

Redx

where is the rest of this appeal ?

have you checked the latest PE popla appeals linked from post #3 of the NEWBIES thread ?