Pesky Parking Eye - Should I or Shouldnt I pay?

Jason.rangou

Parking Eye Charge

I just wanted to ask you guys for a bit of help if possible.

My wife has just received a PCN by Parking Eye for parking in a car park space by the Red Jet Ferry in Southampton.

The PCN shows 2 images of our car arriving and departing.

The fine is for £100 however, it would be reduced to £60 if we pay in 14 days.

I will go with whatever you guys say as I trust you implicitly, if you say pay I will do it. If you say appeal I will do that.

Thanks for reading.

Fruitcake

It is not a fine.

The Driver should have checked the signs and paid if it was required. I'm not sure why anyone would park on someone's private property and not check to see if it was OK, or what they should have paid.

However, this can be appealed but you should first edit your post to remove any information about who did what.

The Driver Parked, The Keeper got a parking charge.

You should then read the Sticky thread for NEWBIES that is on the same page where you made your first post, and send the BPA appeal template in blue you will find there. Copy and past and send. Do not reveal who was driving.

You should also check to see if the car park is covered by byelaws as that will give you an extra point for your second stage appeal.

Does the NTK have a bit saying something like, "after 29 days ..." or is there a blank space as if something is missing?

Please also tell us the date of the alleged event and the date The Keeper received the PCN/NTK.

Coupon-mad

Is it worth appealing on the grounds of the fact that the car park was empty and we didn't know that the car park was a parking eye one. Or should we just pay up and chalk it off as an experience.

Neither.

The registered keeper appeals using the template in the NEWBIES thread, that's why it's at the top of this board, telling newbies to please read those FAQS first. Do answer this - it is important:

Does the NTK have a bit saying something like, "after 29 days ..." or is there a blank space as if something is missing?

Jason.rangou

Fruitcake wrote: »

It is not a fine.

Does the NTK have a bit saying something like, "after 29 days ..." or is there a blank space as if something is missing?

Please also tell us the date of the alleged event and the date The Keeper received the PCN/NTK.

The PCN says

Payment to be made within 28 days of date issued - 01/03/2017

"This parking charge is discounted to £60.00
if paid within 14 days of the date issued 15/02/2017
After this date, the full parking charge amount will be owed.

The date of the alleged event was 22 January 2017

AFTER 29 DAYS FROM THE DATE GIVEN (WHICH IS 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 DRIVERS NAME OR CURRENT ADDRESS OF THE DRIVER WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO RECOVER ANY UNPAID PART OF THE PARKING CHARGE FROM YOU.

Redx

but does it have that "white space" or does it mention POFA2012 instead ?

Quote:
Does the NTK have a bit saying something like, "after 29 days ..." or is there a blank space as if something is missing?

people cannot help you if you dont answer their specific questions

Jason.rangou

Redx wrote: »

but does it have that "white space" or does it mention POFA2012 instead ?



people cannot help you if you dont answer their specific questions

Apologies it says

POFA 2012

Redx

right , so it DOES have that POFA2012 wording on it

I would have thought that this was "not relevant land" and so covered by byelaws ?

therefore POFA2013 would not apply if byelaws cover the land

Edna_Basher

IIRC, the Red Jet Ferry Terminal is in the Town Quay area. Check out the ABP Port of Southampton map here:

http://www.southamptonvts.co.uk/admin/content/files/PDF_Downloads/Southampton%20Map%202014.pdf

If the vehicle was parked within the Port's boundaries then as Redx has pointed out, ABP Byelaws will be applicable. This is a good thing because it means that ParkingEye have no right to use POFA 2012 to claim unpaid parking charges from the keeper.

Jason.rangou

Edna_Basher wrote: »

If the vehicle was parked within the Port's boundaries then as Redx has pointed out, ABP Byelaws will be applicable. This is a good thing because it means that ParkingEye have no right to use POFA 2012 to claim unpaid parking charges from the keeper.

Where the alleged event may have happened

http://imgur.com/a/GZ7U7

Coupon-mad

Got to be covered by byelaws but this will need specific wording because POPLA keep having a major brain fart about 'relevant land' such as here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5539035

You can use that example POPLA appeal as a base BUT you will need something in POPLA's face right at the start that links to the Byelaws themselves as evidence and quotes them about motor vehicles/parking and says something like:


Even if this parking operator states they are not issuing this charge under byelaws (but instead under contract law) POPLA Assessor please note that your Lead Adjudicator confirmed in December 2016 that all Assessors were to receive refresher training after a series of errors where Assessors mistakenly thought that 'not using byelaws' on Port/Harbour land meant they could assume this meant the land wasn't in fact covered by those byelaws.

This is always an error by POPLA and frankly, it needs to stop in 2017. POPLA Assessor, please note and with all due respect please check with the Lead Adjudicator before making this decision, if you mistakenly believe that Port land covered by byelaws is suddenly 'relevant land' and open to keeper liability under the POFA, just because a parking operator uses contract law and doesn't mention those byelaws.

Non-relevant Port & Harbour land remains non-relevant land, regardless. This means keeper liability is not possible under the POFA under any circumstances, no matter what the operator may say in their evidence, regardless of PCN or signage wording.

Edna_Basher

When you get to the POPLA stage, you can quote this case where POPLA determined that Town Quay was not relevant land because parking of vehicles (including cars) was covered by the ABP byelaws.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=71378601&postcount=2372