Parking Eye Ticket for ALDI Margate - what next?

Coupon-mad

NotBothered wrote: »

I didnt jump to that conclusion at all! She admitted that she shopped off site, and that car park is for Aldi customers only. I checked! She wasnt an Aldi customer during this period AND SHE OVERSTAYED!

Yes you did; in fact, she and you both assumed it was for Aldi customers only because the sign says so but I've proved that Aldi and/or PE place these signs up even when that is a big fat...LIE.

Telling people here to pay private parking tickets is WRONG advice. You are not helping.

purplesparkles

Ok, so I have my POPLA code. What now?

The_Deep

its important to avoid court and get it quashed by all means necessary


Why this hostility to the small claims court? I have been five times, and won all five.

Umkomaas

purplesparkles wrote: »

Ok, so I have my POPLA code. What now?

Appeal to POPLA.

purplesparkles

Ok, so based on the success of Mahone1302's POPLA appeal on the grounds of 'no keeper liability' here is my letter template:
Dear POPLA

POPLA Ref. xxxx
ParkingEye PNC no. xxxx

I am writing to you to lodge a formal appeal against a parking charge notice sent to myself as registered keeper of a vehicle, in respect of an alleged breach of parking conditions at “ALDI Margate" on XX XX 2016.

I appeal to you that I am not liable for this parking charge on the basis of the below points:

1) ParkingEye has no standing or authority to form contracts with drivers in this particular car park, nor to pursue charges.
2) The signage in the car park was inadequate.
3) The signage in the car park did not inform the driver that ParkingEye intended to hold the keeper liable for the charge should the driver not pay.


1) ParkingEye has no standing or authority to form contracts with drivers in this particular car park, nor to pursue charges.

I do not believe that ParkingEye has any proprietary interest in the land such that it has no standing to make contracts with drivers in its own right, or to pursue charges for breach in its own name. In the absence of such title, ParkingEye must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at Court level.

I contend that ParkingEye merely holds a basic licence to supply and maintain (non compliant) signs and to post out 'tickets' as a deterrent to car park users. I therefore require ParkingEye to provide POPLA and me with an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract that it holds with the landowner. This is required so that I may be satisfied that this contract permits ParkingEye to make contracts with drivers in its own right and provides it with full authority to pursue charges, including a right to pursue them in Court in its own name.

For the avoidance of doubt, a witness statement to the effect that a contract is or was in place will not be sufficient to provide the necessary detail of the contract terms (such as revenue sharing, genuine intentions of these restrictions and charges, set amounts to charge for each stated contravention, etc.). A witness statement would not comply with section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice as the definition of the services provided would not be stated in such a vague template document.


2) The signage in the car park was inadequate.

Since receiving this PCN I have visited the car park where the parking event allegedly occurred, and feel that the signage is not adequate. The British Parking Association CoP requires that terms and conditions on car parking signs must be clearly readable. The signs around the car park detailing the terms and conditions of parking are approximately 2 metres off the ground, which is above the average height for an adult and contain a large amount of writing in small lettering that is not easy to read.


3) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.

It is not disputed that the driver has not been identified. Even if POPLA (wrongly, because the law doesn't support this assumption against a keeper) believe that they can 'assume that the operator is pursuing the appellant as the driver of the vehicle' in cases where a non-POFA Notice (like this one) was served, there is still the issue of identifying that the individual the operator is pursuing, is the party who is liable.

I am the keeper and I chose to appeal, not the driver and nor can I be held/assumed as if I was that party. No assumptions can be made by POPLA nor parking operators, that 'driver liability' is possible in this situation just because I appealed as registered keeper, as is my right. Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator stated that it is the keeper’s right not to name the driver, and of course still not be lawfully held liable, under Schedule 4.

“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper...has no legal obligation to name the driver.”

Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle as they have not met the critical conditions within Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012. As the registered keeper, I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a registered keeper without a valid NTK.

Furthermore the paramount importance of compliance with POFA 2012 was confirmed by Mr Greenslade in his 2015 POPLA Report: ''If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''

As the burden of proof rests with the operator in both showing that the appellant has not complied with terms in place on the land, AND showing that the appellant is liable for the parking charge issued, POPLA will be unable to reach any lawful and factual conclusion regarding a keeper appellant like myself being liable, without the POFA having been followed. A very late and non-POFA 'postal PCN' is absolutely fatal to a case where the driver's identity remains unknown.

Thus in this situation, there is no 'keeper liability' nor 'driver liability' possible and the PCN must be cancelled.

Umkomaas

in cases where a non-POFA Notice (like this one) was served,

I haven't read any previous information in this thread that suggests this. Is the NtK non-PoFA compliant?

How did you get on with complaining to Aldi - the surest way of kicking this into the long grass if they tell PE to cancel - which more often than not, they do.

Have you posted a complaint on the Aldi Facebook page - that usually causes them to quickly get in touch with you?

purplesparkles

It isn't non-PoFA compliant no. I will look at what changes I should make in that case. Can I still argue the case of 'no keeper liability'?

In the meantime I have contacted ALDI by phone. They said on the phone that the fine would be upheld despite me saying that the driver shops at a local store, and the vehicle was parked at the carpark for just 11 minutes over the specified time limit. They gave me a reference number and said I could send a letter to them with receipts if I want to take it further. I will try that angle unless you think its worth approaching them via FB too?

I do have one concern and that is that the driver may have been referred to/identified during that call.

Umkomaas

When you say it isn't non PoFA compliant, have you checked everything pedantically against the PoFA schedule? There is a PoFA checklist in the following link. As I said check pedantically. Don't consider that a 'more or less, near enough' statement in the NtK is good enough. It must meet the PoFA requirements precisely.

http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/keeper-liability/

Who did you speak to at Aldi? The actual shop, or the HQ parking team? It's the latter who have the clout to kick this out.

Definitely rant on FB - you need to be throwing everything at this. POPLA, while starting to get some issues 'right', are still prone to major gaffes.

Aldi are unlikely to have twigged any inadvertent identification of the driver - especially at the local level. Very unlikely to even understand the issue.

In your POPLA appeal, you need to dismantle the Beavis case, which PE will throw at you and POPLA. Here is a link to a very good appeal in which Beavis is dismantled. But please, don't blindly copy and paste (as you've done above) and hope for the best. Make sure you read it, understand it and adapt if necessary.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=71071381&postcount=15

Here's another good PE-related POPLA appeal. It's one where the driver has already been identified - but you must work on the basis of no driver having been identified. The link is for you to draw some inspiration from, don't see the length of this as being essential in your case - POPLA appeals don't need to be this detailed.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=43529

HTH

purplesparkles

Thanks for the tips Umkomaas. Back to the drawing board!

Coupon-mad

Is your PCN one that mentions the 29 days keeper liability under the POFA, like most PE PCNs do?

Mahone1302's one was not a POFA one, had a blank space at the bottom because PE do this when they know they are serving the Notice too late. If yours is not like that, then yep, start again and use other PE POPLA examples instead. Let's see your second draft. Try searching 'POPLA Aldi' but only read 2016 examples.

And Aldi are best complained to by using their website 'contact us' link, like most firms.