ParkingEye - Hire Car - POPLA Appeal

GaryUK

Hi all,

I've been reading the Parking threads with interest following the receipt of a ParkingEye PCN as the hirer of a hire car deemed to have exceeded the 2 hour free parking limit at Charnock Richard Services on the M6.

The alleged offence took place on 25/05/2016, and the PCN was issued to Enterprise Rent A Car (ERAC) on 10/06/2016. ERAC subsequently wrote to me and notified me they'd charged me a £35 admin fee. The first thing I needed to do was get the admin fee cancelled, and I succeeded in this after several complaints to ERAC.

After some internet research, it appeared PE had failed to follow POFA 2012 by issuing the original PCN outside the 14 day deadline. I was living in Scotland at the time of the alleged offence, but moved to England in June, so the reissued PCN was initially sent to my old address in Scotland with a new issue date of 28/07/2016. I ignored all their correspondence at this stage. I subsequently received a letter from PE at my new address, dated 21/09/2016 and still offering the reduced charge of £60 for 14 days.

At this point, I appealed the PCN, not identifying the driver, on the basis the original PCN to ERAC was delivered outside the 14 day period stipulated in POFA 2012, and therefore PE forfeited its right to pursue the keeper, including me as the hirer, for the charge. Unsurprisingly, PE rejected the appeal and issued me with a POPLA Reference Number.

I am now at the POPLA appeal stage and have drafted an appeal letter based on what I have read in this and other forums. As well as the standard stuff, I have included the points about the PCN being issued late, and also the fact PE did not supply the required correspondence to me, the hirer, when they did finally write to me. I would appreciate any help or advice you can offer. The draft is below. Apologies for its length, but that seems to be the recommended approach. As a new user, I'm unable to post links, so I've typed link removed in place of hyperlinks to allow the draft to be posted. Most of it is copied from other threads and the links I hope are standard? Many thanks in advance. Gary

Re: ParkingEye PCN, reference number XXXXXX/XXXXXX
POPLA Ref: XXXXXXXXXX

I was the hirer of the vehicle relating to the parking charge notice (reference above).
I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge on the grounds listed below and request that they are all considered.

1) The Operator failed to deliver a Notice to Keeper in accordance with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA).
2) The Operator failed to deliver a Notice to Hirer that was fully compliant with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA).
3) The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself
4) No evidence to show that the ANPR system is reliable
5) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge
6) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

1) The Operator failed to deliver a Notice to Keeper in accordance with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA).

In order to rely upon POFA to claim unpaid parking charges from a vehicle’s keeper, an operator must deliver a Notice to Keeper in full compliance with POFA’s strict requirements. In this instance, the Operator’s Notice to Keeper did not comply.

Paragraph 9, Sub-paragraphs 4 and 5 of Schedule 4 of POFA, regarding the Notice to Keeper, state the following:

(4) The notice must be given by –

(a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or
(b) sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.

(5) The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.

The alleged parking event occurred on 25/05/2016, but the Notice to Keeper was only issued on 10/06/2016. This is 16 days after the alleged parking offence, so the Notice to Keeper could not have been received by the keeper within the relevant period specified in sub-paragraph 5.


2) The Operator failed to deliver a Notice to Hirer that was fully compliant with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”)

In order to rely upon POFA to claim unpaid parking charges from a vehicle’s hirer, an operator must deliver a Notice to Hirer in full compliance with POFA’s strict requirements. In this instance, the Operator’s Notice to Hirer did not comply.

The relevant provisions concerning hire vehicles are set out in Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 of POFA with the conditions that the Creditor must meet in order to be able to hold the hirer liable for the charge being 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) (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)). The Operator did not provide me with copies of any of these documents.
Should the Operator try to suggest that there is any other method whereby a vehicle’s keeper (or hirer) can be held liable for a charge where a driver is not identified, I draw POPLA’s attention to the guidance given to operators in POPLA's 2015 Annual Report by Henry Greenslade, Chief Adjudicator in which he reminded them of a keeper's (or hirer's) right not to name the driver whilst still not being held liable for an unpaid parking charge under Schedule 4 of POFA. Although I trust that POPLA's assessors are already very familiar with the contents of this report, for ease of reference I set out a link as follows:

Link removed

I draw POPLA’s particular attention to the section entitled “Keeper Liability” in which Mr. Greenslade explains that:

“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.......
.......... However keeper information is obtained, 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 sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver”.

Through its failure to deliver a compliant Notice to Hirer, the Operator has forfeited its right to claim unpaid parking charges from the vehicle’s hirer. For this reason alone, POPLA may determine that the Operator’s claim against me is invalid.
3) The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:

Link removed

In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.

Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

Link removed

This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.

It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.

The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:

Link removed

As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:

Link removed

''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2” letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3” or even larger.''

...and the same chart is reproduced here:

Link removed

''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.

''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''

So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':

(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:

Link removed

This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.

4) No evidence to show that the ANPR system is reliable

This Operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. I require the Operator to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show the vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that this Operator must produce evidence in response to these points and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the Operator in ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence form the Operator was 'fundamentally flawed' as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.
ParkingEye has not provided any evidence to show that their system is reliable, accurate or maintained. I request that you uphold my appeal based on this.

 
5) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge

In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. 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 keeper without a valid NTK.

As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

The burden of proof rests with the Operator to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

Understanding keeper liability
“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 sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''

Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.

This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''

6) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

a) the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

b) any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

c) any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

d) who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

e) the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

Coupon-mad

Looks perfect! A likely winner due to the Notice to Hirer issue.

Just to say that point #3 needs the heading in bold & a nice gap between each point will help POPLA read it. Save it as a PDF and upload it under OTHER on the POPLA website.

Fruitcake

That's really good. Well done on getting the hire company to refund their 35 quid scam fee, and well done on doing all of this without asking a load of questions on here first.

I have a few minor comments. I suggest you put the quoted text in either italics or a different colour so it can easily be separated from your own words.

In addition, it has come to light that many parking companies don't have planning permission for their cameras, and don't have advertising consent for their signs. The latter is a criminal rather than civil offence. A call to the council planning department of the car park location may produce useful information that you can add to your appeal if you have time.

Not having permission could also be grounds for complaint to the BPA, DVLA, Trading Standards, local and national press, your MP, and Mrs May. In fact, this parking company that has lied in court filing to follow the POFA 2012 should be grounds for complaints anyway.

GaryUK

Thanks for the replies. I think the formatting was lost during copying and pasting from Word. I put the headings into bold after pasting but missed #3.

I'll check for the italics too. Hopefully, the planning permission bit won't be required, but it's something to think about if the appeal fails.

Thanks again; most of the draft was copied from Coupon-mad's posts, so thank you for the excellent advice and guidance.

I'll let you know how it goes.

Gary

GaryUK

Hi all,

I have received the evidence pack from ParkingEye. It consists of copies of the numerous PCNs sent to the hire car company and me as the hirer, some blurb about their ANPR, photos of signs and their dimesions and locations, copies of the appeal submitted to PE and their appeal rejection letter. There is also a letter giving PE permission to issue PCNs on behalf of Welcome Break limited, signed by David Newman, Business Development Manager, signed for and on behalf of Welcome Break Holdings Ltd. They state the contract between PE and the landowner cannot be supplied as evidence as it contains commercially sensitive information, but a signed witness statement has been accepted by POPLA as sufficient evidence.
There is no copy of the hire car agreement.
I'll now study the guidance given on the forum regarding responding to the evidence, but if anyone has any advice that might be specific to my case, I would be very grateful for your input.
Many thanks

Guys_Dad

Can you confirm that the original NtK to the Hire company was outside the 14-day timeframe? PE are usually within the 14 days, although not always.

GaryUK

Hi,

Yes. The original Parking Charge Notice to ERAC Ltd, which they have also supplied a copy of in the evidence pack, gives the date of the event as 25/05/2016 and the date issued as 10/06/2016. In fact, I can see that they only requested the keeper details from the DVLA on 09/06/2016, and those details were received on 10/06/2016.

Many thanks

pappa_golf

I was living in Scotland at the time of the alleged offence, but moved to England in June, so the reissued PCN was initially sent to my old address in Scotland with a new issue date of 28/07/2016. I ignored all their correspondence at this stage. I subsequently received a letter from PE at my new address, dated 21/09/2016 and still offering the reduced charge of £60 for 14 days.

was this forwarded from your old address or did PE search the DVLA database for it?

GaryUK

This is my draft rebuttal:

Dear Sir/Madam,

POPLA Verification Code: XXXXXXXXXX

I write in response to the evidence pack supplied by ParkingEye in relation to the above POPLA Verification Code. In my original POPLA appeal, I raised the following points:-

1) The Operator failed to deliver a Notice to Keeper in accordance with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA).
2) The Operator failed to deliver a Notice to Hirer that was fully compliant with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA).
3) The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself
4) No evidence to show that the ANPR system is reliable
5) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge
6) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

1) The Operator failed to deliver a Notice to Keeper in accordance with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA).

ParkingEye have supplied copies of the Parking Charge Notices issued firstly to ERAC Ltd, then subsequently to myself as the vehicle hirer. It can be clearly seen that the initial Parking Charge Notice was issued to ERAC Ltd on 16/06/2016, which is outside the 14 day relevant period stipulated in Schedule 4, Paragraph 9, sub-paragraph 5 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). Furthermore, ParkingEye’s history of events shows that they only applied to the DVLA for the registered keeper’s details on 09/06/2016, already 1 day outside the relevant period.

2) The Operator failed to deliver a Notice to Hirer that was fully compliant with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”)

ParkingEye have still not produced copies of the documents required under Paragraphs 13(2) of POFA, namely (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.
 
3) The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

ParkingEye have supplied several photographs of the signs they say are displayed at Charnock Richard, along with an overhead site photograph showing the location of the signs. The majority of the photographs of the actual signs on site have date stamps of 22/09/2014, 20 months prior to the alleged parking event. Therefore, these photographs do not indicate the current condition of the signs, which may have been weathered and suffered significant deterioration since the time the photographs were taken. Indeed, where is the evidence that these signs are still at those locations?

Note also that only a small number of the signs indicate that “failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a parking charge of £100” and those that do are smaller signs, hence the text is small and difficult to read if not close to the sign. Further to this, the overhead photograph shows the signs to be concentrated at the outer edges of the parking areas, so a motorist parking in the centre of the area would not be able to view the signs at all. There is no evidence as to where in the car park the vehicle was actually parked. The larger sign at the entrance to the site makes no reference to a parking charge if the motorist fails to comply with the terms and conditions.

4) No evidence to show that the ANPR system is reliable

Irrespective of ParkingEye’s claim that their ANPR system is reliable and well maintained, of the 4 photographs supplied, in particular the two “exit” photographs taken at 17:36:21, one shows no vehicle at all, and the other appears to be taken in the dark. Sunset time on 25th May in the UK is 2100hrs, so why does it appear that the second exit photograph is shot in the dark? This clearly shows the quality of the ANPR cameras on that site is questionable and not up to the required standard.

5) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge

As the keeper of the vehicle, and for the reasons stated in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, I am not liable for any parking charge in respect of this vehicle on the date of the alleged event.

6) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

The contract between the landowner and operator has not been produced, siting commercial sensitivity.

Yours faithfully

Fruitcake

GaryUK wrote: »

Hi,

Yes. The original Parking Charge Notice to ERAC Ltd, which they have also supplied a copy of in the evidence pack, gives the date of the event as 25/05/2016 and the date issued as 10/06/2016. In fact, I can see that they only requested the keeper details from the DVLA on 09/06/2016, and those details were received on 10/06/2016.

Many thanks

Issued on day 16 so cannot possibly have got to you within the POFA 14 day deadline unless parking lie have a time machine.

Stick with it and you will win this.

GaryUK

pappa_golf wrote: »

I was living in Scotland at the time of the alleged offence, but moved to England in June, so the reissued PCN was initially sent to my old address in Scotland with a new issue date of 28/07/2016. I ignored all their correspondence at this stage. I subsequently received a letter from PE at my new address, dated 21/09/2016 and still offering the reduced charge of £60 for 14 days.

was this forwarded from your old address or did PE search the DVLA database for it?

They obtained the new address from a Credit Reference Agency.