ParkingEye - PCN Issued over 14 days

carolinen07

Hi

The Deep – I did think (perhaps naively) that this would do it as they have pretty much doubled the time they are to notify me… I will perhaps write to them again to confirm I have addressed the BPA and note this as again my main point. I believe that the ‘rejection letter’ seems to just be a generic one so they most likely have not even read my points!

Umkomaas – I have looked at the enclosed letter and have just seen a code on the centre bottom page (sneakily with no reference to it being the POPLA code!!) So you are correct! I shall now continue to read all the message boards for this POPLA stage!? Thank you for pointing this out. I would not have noticed this otherwise as it is rather sneakily placed!!

enfield_freddy

regarding the time delay in receiving the letter , you have failed to address the questions I posted above .


if the circumstances include new address/no home reg of the vehicle , it could explain the delay .

carolinen07

enfield_freddy wrote: »

regarding the time delay in receiving the letter , you have failed to address the questions I posted above .


if the circumstances include new address/no home reg of the vehicle , it could explain the delay .

Hi Enfield freddy!

Apologies - response was posted in another post above..:

Enfield freddy - The car is a leasehire car. He is the registered keeper and we have resided at the home for a few years. My main issue was that they had not sent the notice within 14 days (we received it about 29 days later!)

enfield_freddy

ok , you now say its a lease / hire car.


I can only ask one more time ,


IS THE V5 present at your house and is the car registered in your name/address




give you a clue , do YOU tax the car , or is it done for you by the lease hire Co ,


if I asked you to go to a drawer , and retrieve the V5 , and read me a date from it , could you?

The_Deep

Caroline, so many people here advise wearing a belt, braces, and a piece of string to keep one's kecks up. I am just a belt man, and in my opinion you should just go for a single point appeal.


If PoPLA did by some chance, contrary to the law of the land, turn it down, you could appeal to the Chief Adjudicator, and if he too agreed with the PPC, both very unlikely, you could consider your options. It would be a very brave PPC who took this to court.

carolinen07

OK OK enfield freddy ..... Sorry! Registered as the lease hire company.

carolinen07

The Deep - I will go for a SPA..! I will take a strong coffee - and set aside some time to write and compile on the (apparently hideous) new website! x

enfield_freddy

OK now that has been established , the reason for the delay in receiving the letter is obvious , they wrote to the lease/hire company , probably in good time , they then forwarded your details back to PE.


so your thoughts of being over 14 days are a dead duck.


continue with plan B:

g0wfv

carolinen07 wrote: »

The Deep - I will go for a SPA..! I will take a strong coffee - and set aside some time to write and compile on the (apparently hideous) new website! x

Multi-point appeal in accordance with the advice in the newbies thread; Freddy has pointed out the reason why!

Start doing your homework - Scour the internet for other cases on the same land.

Read the newbies thread and other appeal/defence threads for points to add to your own defence. Don't leave something out because you think you can't prove it; allege everything - for example and in no particular order; not a GPEOL, lack of standing/authority, unclear/non-compliant signage - it's for PE to prove they have complied with statutory requirements or other contracts and are justified to claim from you rather than for you to prove they aren't (if that makes sense?)

Get yourself onto WhatDoTheyKnow and submit a FOI request the local council to see what advertising consents exist for this site - PE are very quick to plaster a site with signs and cameras but then 'forget' the statutory obligation to obtain the relevant consents. Currently ongoing examples here and here.

Above all, take the time to write a strongly worded complaint to the landowner, management agency, retailer(s) and pretty much whoever will listen - do more digging if you need to find out who sits where in the ownership or responsibility for the site - ask in each letter for them to refer you to someone else if they can't deal with it themselves. Better that someone pulling the puppet strings gets the charge cancelled at source than having to go to court in the first place!

As you can see from one of the threads linked above this is all advice that I received from this forum not two months ago, and things are now slowly (hopefully, touch wood etc) coming together.

This may not be the most clear cut of paths but persistence pays off.

Good luck!

Edna_Basher

So long as "keeper mode" is maintained, ParkingEye's non-compliant Notice to Hirer is a winning appeal point with POPLA.

You could include within your POPLA appeal something along the lines of:

ParkingEye's Notice to Hirer did not comply with the strict requirements of POFA 2012

In order to be able to invoke Keeper liability under POFA 2012, ParkingEye had to deliver a Notice to Hirer that fully met all of POFA 2012’s strict requirements. However, the Notice to Hirer did not comply and ParkingEye has therefore forfeited any right to claim keeper liability for this PCN.

The relevant provisions concerning hire vehicles are set out in Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4, POFA 2012; the conditions that the Creditor must meet in order to be able to hold the Hirer liable for the charge are set out in Paragraph 14.

• Paragraph 14 (2) (a) specifies that in addition to delivering a Notice to Hirer within the relevant period, the Creditor must also provide the Hirer with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) together with a copy of the Notice to Keeper (i.e. the notice that had originally been sent to the lease company (as Registered Keeper)). ParkingEye did not provide copies of these documents.
• Paragraph 14 (5) (b) specifies that the Notice to Hirer must refer the Hirer to the information contained in the Notice to Keeper. ParkingEye’s Notice to Hirer merely refers the Hirer to the Notice to Keeper, rather than referring the Hirer to the information contained in the Notice to Keeper. This is a fundamental omission, especially given that ParkingEye did not provide a copy of the Notice to Keeper as required under Paragraph 14 (2) (a). Consequently, ParkingEye failed to provide much of the information required to be included in the Notice to Keeper under Paragraph 9 (2).