Letter only from hire company - Advice needed please

Coupon-mad

Also you need to remove non-applicable wording from the unclear signage point because you said this in your OP:

parked for 2 hours in a 1:30 hr car park

...yet you've copied words like 'for a few minutes driving in and out' (right at the end) from a case where a car never parked and was only onsite for 10 minutes. I'm not saying remove unclear signage BTW but it needs to be all relevant.

Hasslehogg

) yeah i bet

Hasslehogg

ok thanks coupon-mad

Edna_Basher

Here's my suggestion for Appeal Point 1 (Non-Compliant Notice to Hirer).

1) ParkingEye’s Notice to Hirer failed to meet the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA

In order to be able to rely upon POFA to claim unpaid parking charges from a vehicle’s hirer, a Creditor must deliver a Notice to Hirer that fully meets the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA.

Fundamentally, ParkingEye’s Notice to Hirer issued to me on [Date of Issue of Notice to Hirer] failed to comply with these strict requirements and ParkingEye has therefore forfeited any right to hold me liable for this PCN in my capacity as the vehicle’s hirer.

The relevant provisions concerning hire vehicles are set out in Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 of POFA, with Paragraph 14 setting out the conditions that the Creditor must meet in order to be able to hold the hirer liable for an unpaid parking charge.

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) (i.e. a) a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; b) a copy of the hire agreement; and c) a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement), 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 me with a copy of any of these additional documents.

Furthermore, ParkingEye has failed to comply with Paragraph 14 (5) of Schedule 4, specifically Paragraph 14 (5) (b) which requires that the Notice to Hirer must refer the hirer to the information contained in the Notice to Keeper. ParkingEye’s Notice to Hirer refers the hirer only to the Notice to Keeper itself, not to the information contained in the Notice to Keeper. This is a crucial omission, especially given that ParkingEye did not provide me with a copy of the Notice to Keeper as required under Paragraph 14 (2) (a). Consequently, ParkingEye failed to provide me with much of the information that was required to be included in the Notice to Keeper under Paragraph 9 (2).

For this reason alone, POPLA may reasonably determine that ParkingEye has no valid claim against me and that my appeal should therefore be allowed.

Hasslehogg

thanks Edna

what about this for final draft please?

I write to lodge my formal submission for Alternative Dispute Resolution of my dispute with ParkingEye Ltd regarding the above-detailed Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) dated 13th February 2016 in respect of an alleged breach of parking terms and conditions at Home Bargains, Jarrow, Tyne & Wear on 15th January 2016. The vehicle in question is on long-term lease to me and I confirm that I am the vehicle’s hirer and keeper for the purpose of the corresponding definitions under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”).

I set out below why I am not liable for this parking charge:

1. Parking Eye Ltd failed to deliver a Notice to Hirer that was fully compliant with the requirements of POFA and consequently it has forfeited its right under POFA to hold the hirer liable for the charge
2. No landowner authority
3. Unclear signage


1. ParkingEye’s Notice to Hirer failed to meet the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA

In order to be able to rely upon POFA to claim unpaid parking charges from a vehicle’s hirer, a Creditor must deliver a Notice to Hirer that fully meets the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA.

Fundamentally, ParkingEye’s Notice to Hirer issued to me on [Date of Issue of Notice to Hirer] failed to comply with these strict requirements and ParkingEye has therefore forfeited any right to hold me liable for this PCN in my capacity as the vehicle’s hirer.

The relevant provisions concerning hire vehicles are set out in Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 of POFA, with Paragraph 14 setting out the conditions that the Creditor must meet in order to be able to hold the hirer liable for an unpaid parking charge.

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) (i.e. a) a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; b) a copy of the hire agreement; and c) a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement), 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 me with a copy of any of these additional documents.

Furthermore, ParkingEye has failed to comply with Paragraph 14 (5) of Schedule 4, specifically Paragraph 14 (5) (b) which requires that the Notice to Hirer must refer the hirer to the information contained in the Notice to Keeper. ParkingEye’s Notice to Hirer refers the hirer only to the Notice to Keeper itself, not to the information contained in the Notice to Keeper. This is a crucial omission, especially given that ParkingEye did not provide me with a copy of the Notice to Keeper as required under Paragraph 14 (2) (a). Consequently, ParkingEye failed to provide me with much of the information that was required to be included in the Notice to Keeper under Paragraph 9 (2).

For this reason alone, POPLA may reasonably determine that ParkingEye has no valid claim against me and that my appeal should therefore be allowed.
2. No landowner authority

The on-site signage states in small text (illegible from a vehicle driving in/out of the site) that ParkingEye Ltd are acting 'on behalf of' the landowner; this specific wording indicates the operator has no right to sue in their own name. Under the law of agency, a contract to be made by an agent 'on behalf of' a disclosed principal is considered to be the contract of that named principal, the latter retaining control/liability. ParkingEye Ltd are not a party to the alleged contract formed between a driver and principal (landowner) and they cannot enforce it in their own name.

I put the operator to strict proof of their landowner contract, including proof that they have the right in their name, to 'enforce charges in the courts if necessary'. Anything less is not only a breach of the BPA CoP but renders the parking firm with no standing, with no more powers than any other standard contractor (e.g. a cleaning firm) over visitors to the land.


3. Unclear signage

The signs on site are not well-placed or legible from points within the car park, so it is likely a car driving in and out will not have have passed a readable sign with full terms nor with the 'charge' in large font. This renders this site non-comparable with the car park in ParkingEye v Beavis and is evidence that no contract was formed at all.

In particular the £85 sum of the charge is not clear/legible in 'large lettering' on the signs. This contravenes Schedule 4 of the POFA which requires 'adequate notice of the charge' as a matter of statute.

Coupon-mad

Add a point #4 and it should be ready to submit online as a PDF under 'other':


4. ANPR systems are unreliable and drivers are not informed how the data captured will be used.

ANPR is unreliable and shows no evidence of an actual parking period, nor even whether the vehicle drove in and out of the same entrance/exit. Nor is there evidence that this was not a case of two shorter visits. ANPR systems are known to default to showing data based upon the first entry and last exit and this technology has an inherent flaw, in that not all VRNs are captured each day (e.g. if the camera is blocked by a van or even if the VRN is obscured by a pedestrian or other car tailgating on first exit). ParkingEye will no doubt suggest that theirs is the same sort of system used by NATO and Buckingham Palace but the fact is the timings and photographs are far from infallible and has VRNs missed every day. ANPR camera systems are considered in working order if they have up to a 10% error (missed or false VRN) rate which is typical for these systems. I put this operator to strict proof that the vehicle actually parked for one single parking event, in excess of the parking time allowed.

The BPA support my position in this article, stating that there are 'issues' with ANPR:

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Other-Advice#4

''As with all new technology, there are issues associated with its use...Repeat users of a car park inside a 24 hour period sometimes find that their first entry is paired with their last exit, resulting in an ‘overstay’. Operators are becoming aware of this and should now be checking all ANPR transactions to ensure that this does not occur.''

Further, there is a breach of Section 21.1 of the BPA’s Code of Practice. No signs clearly and transparently inform a motorist what it is using the data captured by ANPR cameras for. Indeed the consumer public - if they notice the tiny cameras hidden on poles - would no doubt believe that this is CCTV for security surveillance and have no idea that they are being timed at the entrance (even outside the boundary of the car park in some cases) rather than from the point of parking and deciding to 'stay'. The driver is not informed that the ANPR 'clock' continues to tick even as they queue to leave onto a main road, long after vacating a parking bay and will even add the times together, if they leave and return. Nor are they informed in large lettering (or at all) at the entrance that the data captured will be used to apply to the DVLA in order to send a 'parking charge' in the post to the owner/keeper of the vehicle who, in certain circumstances, can be held liable.

This information, if it is there at all, is hidden in small print that is impossible to read from a driver's seat, so a person with a hire car runs a risk of a disproportionate and unexpected charge being sent to the Lease hire company (as happened here) which causes them significant loss if the hire company charges an administration fee, or worse, if they pay PCNs without referral to the hirer. In this case, as hirer the first I knew of the matter was when the Lease company contacted me after this operator send them a demand. I believe this is an abuse of data handling and a breach of the ICO registration which requires the public to be informed how images and data will be used/stored and for what purpose(s).

The relevant section of the CoP states, “You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for”.

Hasslehogg

thanks Coupon-Mad, much appreciated again

Hasslehogg

All just a quick one before i appeal on the popla website, the notice to hirer is just the PCN i received from ParkingEye in my case correct? i dont want to get the dates mixed up in the appeal

thanks

Coupon-mad

Hasslehogg wrote: »

All just a quick one before i appeal on the popla website, the notice to hirer is just the PCN i received from ParkingEye in my case correct? i dont want to get the dates mixed up in the appeal

thanks

Yes, that's their version of a NTH - they are meant to include bumf from the lease hire co. but they failed. They always do.

Hasslehogg

thanks Coupon-mad, submitting now, will let you all know how i get on