Notice to keeper - almost 3 months after parking date?

Umkomaas

For your likely POPLA stage start reading now the newbies FAQ sticky, post #3 'How to win at POPLA', the POPLA Decisions sticky (start at the most recent and read back 5 or 6 pages for latest results) and do a forum search on 'ParkingEye POPLA' and have a read of wins against PE over the past couple of months.

So if your initial appeal is rejected, you can hit the deck running with your POPLA stage.

Coupon-mad

Just to copy here, my suggested point #1 (followed by point #2 and the rest of the usual stuff about signage and no landowner authority, as per the templates shown in POPLA Decisions in September). This first point is about a PE NTK with the 'blank space' ('not sent in time' version) and the appeal as a whole which I did for a friend, frightened PE off the other week:




1) ParkingEye's Parking Charge Notice is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the dates and the wording used.

Under schedule 4, paragraph 4 of the POFA, an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle if certain conditions must be met as stated in paragraphs 5, 6, 11, and 12. ParkingEye have failed to fulfil the conditions which state that an operator must have provided the keeper with a Notice to Keeper (NTK) in accordance with paragraph 9, which stipulates as mandatory, a set timeline and wording:-

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.

The applicable section here is (b) because the Parking Charge Notice/NTK that I have received was delivered by post. Furthermore, paragraph 9(5) states:

’’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 Parking Charge Notice sent to myself as Registered Keeper was produced in their offices showing a purported ‘date issued’ which was already past the 14 days by which, under statute, it had to be in my hands/served. Even if they had posted it that day (which ParkingEye never do in any case at all because they do not put letters in the postal system for several days, due to their batching of mail using a third party before it reaches the Royal Mail system) it would be impossible for the notice to have been delivered within the 'relevant period' as required under paragraph 9(4)(b).

In fact, this NTK arrived over three weeks after the alleged event. This means that ParkingEye have failed to act within the 14 day relevant period.

Furthermore, it is clear that ParkingEye know this because they have used the alternative version of their template ‘Parking Charge Notice’ – the one with a blank space near the bottom of page one and no reference to ‘keeper liability’ or the POFA.

So, this is a charge that could only be potentially enforced against a known driver and there is no evidence of who that individual was, which brings me to point #2:



2) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge. (...this wording is in 'POPLA Decisions' as a template, along with 'unclear signs and no landowner authority which ALWAYS feature).

RedGuitar

Excellent thank you! If it goes to that stage I'll use the above, changing date received etc and find out point 2 to add on, will probably just run my POPLA appeal past the board here before sending to make sure I don't miss anything.

Coupon-mad

and point 3 and point 4 as mentioned.

(followed by point #2 and the rest of the usual stuff about signage and no landowner authority, as per the templates shown in POPLA Decisions in September).

RedGuitar

So I've just had a reminder through the post from PE on this - the same sheet but this one does have the final paragraph at the bottom but it's about the Supreme Court decision on the Beavis case? Still no mention of time frames for POFE legislation to press invoices. Is this anything to be worried about? Still no response to my appeal, just the acknowledgment from the website when I submitted it

Umkomaas

Are PE now asking for details of the driver before processing your appeal? PE have 35 days to deal with your appeal.

Sometimes reminder letters cross in the post with initial appeals. If no response within 35 days, complain to the BPA.

RedGuitar

Ok, appeal has come back unsuccessful as I thought. I've got my POPLA code and am getting ready to appeal. As a template I'm going to start with the dropbox file linked here;


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/71545209#Comment_71545209


Points 1 & 2 I don't think I need to change, expect to change the statement regarding when it was received, from 3 weeks late to 3 months(!).


I think point 3 doesn't need any changes for my case? But point 4 & 5 & 6 I will tweak and post up as they're slightly different from this case - driver again did pay but no attendant was present, there must have been a mistyped VRN / issue with machine (I'll go with this) recording the VRN correctly, leading to point 5 that they haven't checked the list and would easily see a mis-recorded VRN paid for at that time if they had.


Do I leave point 7 on as is?

Coupon-mad

Yes, use it the way you describe and show us here by copying & pasting, what the final effort looks like.

Warning to others - that example is specific to a ParkingEye 'blank space' non-POFA PCN like this poster has got (the difference is explained in this thread and in post #3 of the NEWBIES thread too). If you have this type of PE PCN you are laughing (as long as the driver is never implied)!

That linked example POPLA appeal is also specific to a pay & display car park where the driver has not been admitted and the payment was made but the machine (for whatever reason) seems not to have recorded the VRN properly.

Another different example POPLA appeal about a faulty machine is linked in marganne's thread.

LoveNorfolk

Parkinglie ignored my appeal on behalf of parents, we had the original NTK, a begging letter for the drivers details then a reminder of the charge. Never did get an official response to the appeal (which we sent twice!) nor a PoPLA code. Complained numerous times by email to the BPA which Joanna did not like lol, it got cancelled in the end! Good luck in your fight!

RedGuitar

4) On this day there were issues with one or more of the parking machines.
The driver parked and upon trying to pay the charge, she had problems with the machine keypad not accepting the VRN. She believes it eventually accepted it despite the machine malfunctioning more than once and contends that she typed it in correctly.
Full payment was made for the time parked plus more. If a keypad fault when this machine was certainly malfunctioning caused the system not to record the VRN correctly, then that is a matter within ParkingEye’s control, not the driver’s fault, as was found in Claim No C0FC15W4, ParkingEye v Ms G. before Judge Middleton at Bodmin County Court on 26/10/16:
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/parkingeye-lose-in-court-unsolved.html
In this case under appeal now, in all probability, there was a machine failure as in the above similar court case. Payment was made as the signs require and machine not recording the correct VRN remains a mystery like that exposed by the Judge in the recent Bodmin case linked above. A contract was not created by that.