PARKING EYE - PFA 2012 9(5) Question

Dentist1234

I've read the thread on newbies (although i'm not a newbie because I've successfully fought a claim against UKPC last year - arguing inadequate signage) and I would just like to ask a question regarding keepers liability and the arrival of a postal PCN (no windscreen PCN as it was parking eye)

I received my postal PCN as the registered keeper (not the driver) a full 31 days after the alleged specified period of parking ended. To confuse matters the PCN notice also gave me a date of issue (30/9/16) and date of event (3/9/16). Am I correct in thinking that according to Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 9(5) the PCN should have been received within a 'period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.' and that this is the date of event and not the date of issue.

If so I understand that this down grades the PCN to the older rules? how is this significant to my case? should I follow the steps in the newbies thread and take this argument to POPLA? or should I state this to the PCC directly first?

Finally the is no indication on the letter that it is a notice to keeper only a parking charge notice. It does mention not knowing the driver and asking for details if it is not the registered keeper. Is this significant? can this also be used as an argument

Again Thanks ever so much for your help guys!

Fruitcake

Follow the standard procedure by sending the initial BPA template in blue from the NEWBIES thread. You can if you wish point out that the NTK is non POFA compliant, because I wasn't received within the prescribed 14 days from the day after the alleged event. Quote the dates of the alleged event, the date of issue, and the date received as proof.
Obviously don't reveal the driver's identity.

It probably won't make the slightest difference because parking lie will just say they are not relying on the POFA 2012, and reject your appeal.
It doesn't matter. To hold the keeper liable, they have to issue a POFA 2012 complaint NTK. They haven't so you will win at PoPLA on this amongst all the other appeal points you will use.

Coupon-mad

Same as all the other PE threads where we've mentioned that a PCN with a blank space at the bottom (the missing liability paragraph, because they know they've posted it to late - and yes it falls under the 'old rules') is a slam dunk win v PE at POPLA. Count yourself lucky.

Try searching the parking forum for the word 'blank' and clicking on PE threads recently. I'm handling a few like this for people at the moment - won a case last week as PE gave up at POPLA stage - and on the forum we've seen POPLA appeals consistently win again now we have the extra appeal point about the 'individual liable'.

parkingwoes_2

Dentist1234 wrote: »

I received my postal PCN as the registered keeper (not the driver) a full 31 days after the alleged specified period of parking ended. To confuse matters the PCN notice also gave me a date of issue (30/9/16) and date of event (3/9/16). Am I correct in thinking that according to Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 9(5) the PCN should have been received within a 'period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.' and that this is the date of event and not the date of issue.


Again Thanks ever so much for your help guys!

I see you have headed this as a Parking Eye case if so and this was an ANPR ticket then typically this would be considered late UNLESS this was a hire or lease car?

Can you confirm this is Parking Eye?

Parking Eye have had a couple of glitches in the past when sending out PCNs with some issued too late and these do not always mention POFA in the body of the PCN. This can also be the case and late notices sent where keeper liability cannot exist where deemed not relevant land eg in Scotland.

Umkomaas

There have been a number of PE cases over a few weeks now (so not a very recent phenomenon) where they have failed to meet the PoFA deadline for pursuing the keeper.

This has never shown up as a pattern previously - I wonder what's suddenly causing this? Coincidence, or something a little darker?

Coupon-mad

I think it was always there for a couple of years at least. A certain percentage miss the deadline so PE use different wording for those PCNs and have done for a long time. I'm dealing with three like it at the moment for people and they were always fairly common.

I feel we should always ask people the question re any ParkingEye PCN, NOT 'did it arrive by day 14?' (doesn't help) but instead:

'does it have the paragraph about the POFA/keeper liability after 29 days (or hirer liability after 22 days) and is there a paragraph-sized blank space at the bottom of the front page?'