ParkingEye PCN, did not keep ticket for proof

KeithP

You have two point '4)'s.

And your contents list is missing "4)ParkingEye has no standing or authority..."

Coupon-mad

By the way, I did not include anything about grace periods in my initial appeal because one of you mentioned that it just wasn't necessary.

That's correct, the first appeal can say the moon is made of cheese, then the POPLA version can be littered with new 'killer points'! You are allowed and safe to appeal on new points not mentioned before, to win at POPLA.

Just change this, because the missing paragraph is from the back now, since PE changed their PCN style:

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, and the omission of the usual 9(2)f warning about '29 days' which is conspicuous by its absence, on the front or the back.

EpicBox

OK, I will make the amends from the above 2 posts and submit my appeal tonight.

Thanks guys.

EpicBox

OK my appeal is now at the stage where ParkingEye have submitted evidence to counter my appeal. I now have 6 days left to submit comments on this.

ParkingEye attached a 45 page PDF that I will summarise below. Curiously, the POPLA website states that "The operator didn't provide a case summary" but the PDF does contain a case summary.

Page 1: A letter addressed to the keeper saying to find enclosed the information sent to POPLA.
Page 2: Title page "Section A"
- Evidence Checklist
Page 3: Evidence Checklist form
Page 4: Title page "Section B"
- Case Summary
- Copy of any Terms/Conditions
Page 5:
- Details of the event and the vehicle
- Details about the car park and the number of machines
- The chronology of what action was taken when (including when they sent a request to the DVLA for keeper details - which was 22 days after the event)
- Rules and Conditions of the car park (including reference to signage)
- Evidence - "System generated print out showing that insufficient time was purchased on the date of the event."
- Authority: "It must also be noted that any person who makes a contract in his own name without disclosing the existence of a principal, or who, though disclosing the fact that he is acting as an agent on behalf of a principal, renders himself personally liable on the contract, is entitled to enforce it against the other contracting party. (Fairlie v Fenton (1870) LR 5 Exch 169). It follows that a lawful contract between ParkingEye and the motorist will be enforceable by ParkingEye as a party to that contract."
Page 6: Grace period - "ParkingEye operates a grace period on all sites which gives the motorist time to enter a car park, park, and establish whether or not they wish to be bound by the terms and conditions of parking.
There is a sufficient grace period in place at this site which is fully compliant with the BPA code of practice. All grace periods in place are a minimum of 10 minutes or more in line with the BPA Code of Practice."
- Further Evidence: "Please be advised, this Parking Charge was not issued under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012."
Page 7: Title page "Section C"
- Parking Charge Notice
- Any notes of the operative
Page 8: A copy of the PCN letter front
Page 9: A copy of the PCN letter back
Page 10: Title page "Section D"
- Registered Keeper Details
- Liability Trail
Page 11: Case details (basically repeating the information about the car park, the event, the keeper, the vehicle, and the charge.)
Page 12: Photographs of the car entering and leaving with times (both full colour and dark with number plate emphasised)
Page 13: Title page "Section E"
- Original Representation
- Notice of Rejection
Page 14: Copy of email sent to me acknowledging receipt of initial appeal to PE
Page 15: Copy of my appeal
Page 16: Black (footer of previous page)
Page 17: Copy of email sent to me with response to the initial appeal
Pages 18-23: Copy of the appeal rejection documents from PE
Page 24: Title Page "Section F"
- Images, photographs and plans etc.
Pages 25-26: Scans of "Approved BPA Operator" signs
Pages 27-33: Photos of the signs in the car pack (meant to show how they were positioned and how many there were, but also showing that none can be read in detail without getting up close, except for "Holy Trinity Church Newquay / This is a Pay & Display car park / ... / £100")
Pages 24-36: The signage plan
Pages 37-40: Scans of the types of signs
Page 41: A photo of one of the signs next to 2 machines
Page 42: A photo of a sign up close, on which the tariffs and charge warning are clear but there is other print still too small to read.
Page 43:A scan of the tariff sign, which I still have to zoom to 200% on to be able to read the small text.
Page 44: Title page "Section G"
- Other Evidence
Page 45: Record of ticket payment

So, with that out of the way, here are the immediate counter arguments I can think of:

1. The keeper is still not liable for the payment and there is no way to identify the driver.
2. The signs are still difficult to read even when provided with photographs and direct artwork. PE have not provided the evidence requested for where the car was parked and how the signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective when parked.
3. PE have mentioned in their material that they are in accordance with the 10-minute ending grace period, but not with the beginning grace period that gives the driver time to read the signs and pay to begin with.

Do you guys have any suggested wording for this, and is there anything else I should add?

Thanks again.

Coupon-mad

- The chronology of what action was taken when (including when they sent a request to the DVLA for keeper details - which was 22 days after the event)

They will lose - your 1, 2, 3 points seem fine, press the issue in #1 about 'no keeper liability' and TELL POPLA that they cannot in law, find you liable.

nosferatu1001

"- Further Evidence: "Please be advised, this Parking Charge was not issued under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.""
Highlight that to POPLA
State that despite it obviously failing the date requirement of POFA Sched 4 para 9, that is irrelevant as the operator has confirmed they are not holding the Keeper liable. The appeal must succeed.

EpicBox

Success!

"I acknowledge the reason the operator has issued the PCN. The burden of proof lies with the operator to demonstrate that it has issued the PCN correctly. In this instance, I am satisfied that the keeper of the vehicle is entitled to appeal the validity of this PCN as the operator has issued a notice to the keeper’s address. 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."

I imagine that is a very common Golden Ticket result. I was kind of hoping to see what they would say in response to my other points, as the overstay was a genuine mistake caused by poor communication on ParkingEye's part.

Someone with the ability to post links, please share to the POPLA Decisions thread.

So that's a daunting £60-£100 bill wiped away. Thanks for the help guys.

Umkomaas

There you go, well done. :T

I was kind of hoping to see what they would say in response to my other points

POPLA will always go for the easy option, then don’t go beyond that. They fight shy of getting involved in more contentious issues. But, in this game, a win is a win, and you’ve just saved yourself £100, and cost PE £27 in the process.

Not much better a feeling!