PCN - which approach best for my circumstances?

rosered22

Hi,



I'm posting on behalf of my parents as I've fought parking tickets a few times before with help from this forum so I've read up on the various arguments that can be used. I re-read the newbie info and a few things seem to have changed since the Parking Eye vs Beavis case.



Circumstances are...



Around 9pm driver went to the train station to pick up the passenger from a train late at night. They saw a large sign saying '20 Minutes Free Parking for Rail Users' (and directly underneath another sign saying 'pay and display') on a lamppost outside what appeared to be a car park connected to the train station.



They continued to park there occasionally for about 5 months with no come back.



Just recently they've received 2 PCN's from Parking Eye dated about 2 weeks apart (but they received them on consecutive days).



They've enquired with the train station and rail company but they don't seem to know who owns the land. They're wondering whether to complain to the rail company or whether there is not much point if it's a privately owned.



The first PCN: Parking Eye have actually dated their letter 20 days after the alleged contravention. Does this mean it is automatically void because they did not notify them within 15 days (POFA Act 2012)? Should they fight it separately on this basis alone or go with the same response as the second one?



The second PCN: they are unsure whether to argue that the signs outside are misleading. They thought they were parking there on a 20 minutes free basis for rail users (both times were under 20 minutes and the passenger has rail ticket evidence for both dates). They have been back since and there are PE signs inside the car park which state £1 for the first hour and then a higher daily rate, but they are not individually illuminated at night and nowhere near as obvious as the large blue ones on the outside advertising 20 mins free (which on returning for inspection they think must apply to the road outside).


Is it ok to admit that they 'entered into a contact' to park 20 minutes free? Is it better to take the generic route that no contract was formed as they didn't see any signs or is the 20 minutes free stronger?


There is also the argument that its punitive and not an accurate pre-estimate of loss. It was late at night, the car park was empty, the whole day rate is only a fraction of the penalty etc. I know this has become more tricky since the Beavis case, but I think this argument is still effective for pay and display car parks?


We read in this article that you can get around Beavis by offering to pay a nominal amount and then if they reject this you can say that PE failed to mitigate their losses which potentially renders any claim for contractual damages void, and also that the 'benefit' offered to the car parking firm is the pay and display fee, so if you offer to pay the day rate then the 'excess' amount can only be a penalty. (http://www.devonlive.com/do-you-have-to-pay-a-parking-charge-notice-here-s-the-law/story-30002999-detail/story.html)


Do you think this is wise or are they admitting liability and making their position weaker by offering to pay anything?


Or a further approach, should they be awkward, tell them nothing about their personal circumstances and ask PE the list of questions about who owns the land, is it trespass, breach of contract or a contractual sum, status as the creditor etc.?


We've read all the different advice but just not sure which approach will work best in their circumstances.


Thanks for reading this far and thank you in advance for your advice.

Redx

no its not "void" , a lot of people seem to thing that tickets can be "voided" , but these are speculative invoices in an unregulated industry

check the NTK and see if it has the paragraph near the bottom about "29 days" for keeper liability, or is that paragraph missing ?

if the land is railway land , POFA would not apply as its covered using bylaws , so a different scenario (not that this would stop PE chasing them up)

NEVER disclose the drivers details

NEVER offer to pay as this admits liability

NEVER ask questions as this may mean they will delay and the appeal window "times out"

use the BLUE TEXT template in the NEWBIES sticky thread

leave any queries and arguments for the popla appeals

get pictures of the signs , and any lack of illumination etc

the advice in the NEWBIES sticky thread is tried and tested , hundreds or thousands of times , I doubt you can try anything "new" that hasnt been thought about or tried

venture from the tried and tested path at your peril

rosered22

Hi, thanks


Yes, the letter that was late didn't have the POFA paragraph on it but the other letter did. What does this mean?

System

What does this mean?

You are either in Scotland, Northern Ireland, or on land in England and Wales where Keeper Liability does not apply.

Redx

the non-POFA letter (no paragraph) means they cannot chase the keeper for the invoice and can only go after the driver (if known?). this means a defence appeal point is NO KEEPER LIABILITY UNDER POFA2012 (so go ******** yourselves in essence, but you still have to go through all the motions in appealing etc , getting it quashed by themselves with the blue text template or more likely at POPLA later) - it can also mean they know the land isnt relevant under POFA so have removed the POFA wording

if the one WITH the POFA paragraph came within the required 14 days, to the keeper, then they can try and hold the KEEPER liable for the charge using POFA2012 , which means that although they would like the drivers details to pursue them , in the absence of details they will go after the keeper (but if the land isnt relevant then that is an extra appeal point)

so as you can see, it all depends on keeping to POFA , or not

and remember, the driver is always deemed liable because it is their actions (or inactions) that have usually led to this point

Coupon-mad

rosered22 wrote: »

Hi, thanks


Yes, the letter that was late didn't have the POFA paragraph on it but the other letter did. What does this mean?

See post #3 of the NEWBIES thread for an example of that exact PE letter, the non-POFA one with a blank space at the bottom, where it explains why you will win that one at POPLA as long as you never identified the driver in your appeal earlier. So whilst it is not void, it is winnable pretty easily, using the templates for POPLA also in that sticky thread post #3.

There is also the argument that its punitive and not an accurate pre-estimate of loss.

Not there is not, since 2015 this does not work (Beavis case).

Have you appealed & got a POPLA code for each one already? If not, then just use the template appeal in the NEWBIES thread post #1 (yes the blue writing one) and choose 'registered keeper in the drop down menu on PE's appeal page. Wait for POPLA codes and read other PE POPLA threads. Normally all are won here and certainly the non-POFA one can be killed stone dead at POPLA, by a keeper appellant.

rosered22

Thanks very much. Shall I use the template letter in it's entirety including the 4th paragraph "should you obtain the registered keepers data ..." for each PCN? I'm not sure if it's worth attaching copies of my train bookings as it appears to be private land, not belonging to the railway as we thought? Just received reminder letters both exactly the same and quoting Parking Eye vs Beavis case in the final paragraph.

Redx

always use the template letter in its entirety, its rare that it needs to be changed so dont change it without good grounds for doing so