Help Please - Parking Eye not answering points and repeating request for driver

Del_K

Please can anyone help me as I'm not sure what to do next.

I've been reading up on the forums and MSE and made a start to the appeals process but don't know what to do next. The below is a summary of the situation:

Parked at a Retail park for 30 mins over the 'free period' and the free period was only 45 minutes then its 90p for an hour and £1.80 for 2 hours etc. The signs weren't noticed and it was only realised after PCN was sent.

The PCN contained all the correct items and I then appealed using the MSE template stating:
1. it was unfairly issued
2. declined the invitation to name the driver, and that I would not be paying their demand due to:
a). Mitigating circumstances as the driver had an operation under general anaesthetic of which she was getting some medication to help her recovery. However there was long queues but the medication wasn't available in that particular pharmacy. Distraught at this she drove off without noticing the signage and limitations in parking. Evidence had been provided detailing the operation date and details, as proof of the claim (personal details had been removed)
b). The charge is disproportionate and not commercially justifiable as the amount charged is not based upon any commercially justifiable loss to the company or the landowner. In this case, the £85.00 charge far exceeds the cost to the landowner of £0.90p for an overstay of 28 minutes.
3. If they pursue me, to be aware that I will not enter into any correspondence and this will be the only letter they will receive from me until they answer the specific points raised in my letter.

Parking Eye have written back not addressing any of the points above, referring for more info and stated that I name the driver - quoting 'under section 9(2)(b) schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 that the driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay for this parking charge in full. As we do not know the drivers' name or current postal address, if you were not the driver at the time, you should tell us the name and the current postal address.' They stated that I have 28 days to provide this info (of which has passed this date as the letter was dated 15 July 2016).

Should I reply given that they have not answered any of my points and instead just asked for the same things again - ie the driver of the vehicle at the time?

Any guidance would be appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

The_Deep

They do not need to answer your points, the counters to which they will argue are in the Beavis v PE SC judgement.

Obviously they are not buying your mitigation, it is a bit thin imo. If the lady was so indisposed, should she have been driving. Just wait for a PoPLA code and read the stickies.

3. If they pursue me, to be aware that I will not enter into any correspondence and this will be the only letter they will receive from me until they answer the specific points raised in my letter.

That was most unwise, you could well end up with a judgement against you. I suggest you engage, jump through all the necessary hoops, and follow the advice given here, and you might, just might, avoid paying it.

Righteous indignation and bluster will not work with these people.

Del_K

Thanks The Deep

Where can I find more details about 'Beavis v PE SC judgement'? (Sorry I'm new to this).

The lady was fine to drive but was just a bit distraught from the ordeal but I hear you.

What do you mean by 'Just wait for a PoPLA code and read the stickies' - will they issue me a PoPLA code or .

So should I get back in contact with them and pay the fine? I'm unsure what to do next. (Apologies for the naivety in this but this is way over my head and I haven't got a clue whats best to be done).

thanks

The_Deep

What do you mean by 'Just wait for a PoPLA code and read the stickies'

The stickies are at the top of this thread. They explain PoPLA and IAS, all the acronyms we use, and a guide to how to deal with a PCN.

It is not rocket science, but it is not colouring by numbers either. You will need to do a lot of Reading.

Yes, can pay them, lots of people do, but it is a scam. The purpose of this board is to help people avoid paying them, and to cost them money.

Redx

its not a "fine" , its an invoice , a parking charge invoice for breaking the parking rules on private land

it seems to me that you used the old and outdated pre-BEAVIS MSE template that is woefully inadequate and behind the times

1) that is your opinion with no legal facts to back it up, they will argue differently and have and will quote legal arguments, laws and judgments

2a) , they might have allowed mitigation like this, but rarely do, the others are even worse and few if any mitigation claims succeed in the first appeal (but may or do in court)

2b) totally fails since the BEAVIS case at the Supreme Court last year (google it , it was very , very newsworthy)

3) very foolish statement , because they wont back off and it could go to court , like Beavis did, they issue maybe 30 thousand court claims per annum

this was the correct appeal template, from that newbies sticky thread

Date


Dear Sirs

Re: PCN No. ....................

I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car and I will complain to the landowner about the matter if it is not cancelled.

I believe that your signs fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. Your unremarkable and obscure signs were not seen by the driver, are in very small print and the terms are not readable to drivers before they park.

Further, I understand you do not own the car park and you have given me no information about your policy with the landowner or on site businesses, to cancel such a charge. So please supply that policy as required under the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013. I believe the driver may well be eligible for cancellation and you have omitted clear information about the process for complaints including a geographical address of the landowner.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 and offer me a POPLA code, or cancel the charge.

I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.

Yours faithfully,

a lot different to yours, with very good reasons

if you fail to name the driver , they should issue a popla code to you

then you draft a popla appeal , based on legal arguments , like the thousands of others before you, but only using 2016 arguments , so recent ones

and no , they dont have to answer your points , they wont answer your points, they may let you "time out" and then take you to the cleaners though !!

if necessary, tell them you will not name the driver and insist on a popla code by return

meanwhile, do some reading and draft your popla appeal , as this will not "go away"

Del_K

Thanks Redx and The Deep.

Redx - given I have to reply back to PE now saying that I won't name the driver and insist on the popla code by return, should I use the template that you kindly cut and pasted as well just to get that across?

Cheers

Umkomaas

I wonder if PE has failed to issue the NtK on time as normally they send out a POPLA code after rejecting the initial appeal?

@OP please give us:

1. The date of the parking event.
2. The date on the very first letter you received from PE.
3. The date you received it (if you can recall).
4. Is the first letter headed 'Notice to Keeper'?
5. Does that letter contain a paragraph which says in the absence of the driver's name and address for service, they have the right to hold the keeper liable (or similar words)?

Del_K

Thanks Umkomaass for your reply, answers as follows:

1. The date of the parking event.
20 June 2016
2. The date on the very first letter you received from PE.
24 June 2016
3. The date you received it (if you can recall).
Around 30 June 2016
4. Is the first letter headed 'Notice to Keeper'?
No its headed 'Parking Charge Notice' and only mentions the 'Notice to Keeper' and only first mentions anything to do with the keeper in the body text - 3rd para 'You are notified under section 9(2)(b) schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 that the driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay for this parking charge in full. As we do not know the drivers' name or current postal address, if you were not the driver at the time, you should tell us the name and the current postal address.'
5. Does that letter contain a paragraph which says in the absence of the driver's name and address for service, they have the right to hold the keeper liable (or similar words)?
Please see answer for 4 above and the next para after the above they say 'You are warned that if, after 29days from the date given (which is presumed to be the second working day after the Date Issued), the parking charge has not been paid in full and we do not know both the name and current address of the driver, we have to right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from you. This warning is given to you under Paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and is subject to our complying with the applicable conditions under Schedule 4 of that Act'.

Umkomaas

Sorry, Del K, have been out all day, only just back. Thanks for details, but they're not the outcome I was hoping for, insofar as the NtK hasn't failed PoFA in terms of timings etc.

UKPC have started this nonsense following an appeal of going back to the keeper and asking for the driver's identification (despite the NtK asking that same question). If there is no response to the UKPC letter, they then send a POPLA code around day 35 (the point by which they are required to respond by the BPA Code of Practice).

You've done what you needed to via the initial appeal and there's no requirement to respond further. Suggest you do nothing further and see if anything arrives around day 35 (after the submission of your appeal, rather than after your parking event).

See if others want to chip in on this.

Fruitcake

I agree with Umkomaas that it is probably better to wait for the PoPLA code to arrive and use the time to research recent successful PoPLA results.

Read the POPLA Decisions sticky thread for the last three months then pick the bits that are relevant to your case.
These would normally include at least, not the landowner, no standing to issue charges, inadequate signage in breach of the BPA CoP, and non POFA compliant NTK.

Failures of signage or NTK will be things like ...

If ANPR was used, the signs must state what the data captured by the cameras will be used for.
The NTK has to quote the period of parking, not just arrival and departure time.

Basically the NTK has to be compared line by line with the requirements of POFA (the law) and each failure rebutted and explained in short words that the PoPLA assessor can understand.

parkingwoes_2

Del_K wrote: »

Thanks Redx and The Deep.

Redx - given I have to reply back to PE now saying that I won't name the driver and insist on the popla code by return, should I use the template that you kindly cut and pasted as well just to get that across?

Cheers

No need to submit a second initial appeal.

I would be tempted to complain though to the BPA stating that Parking Eye have failed to accept an appeal submitted under their code of practice and they should either decline this first appeal by issuing a POPLA code or cancel the charge.