Parking Eye PCN

Quentin

Yes .

mwjn

Hi Quentin

Thanks for updating me

Coupon-mad

mwjn wrote: »

I used a template from Coupon-Mad

See Below

Thanks

At gone midnight, that was too long for me to read, so I've bumped it up for tomorrow!

mwjn

Hi Coupon-Mad

Many thanks

Coupon-mad

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 two and no reference to POFA.

All I spotted was a repetition of this paragraph, so remove either one.

You WILL WIN! This is a ''Parking Eye ''golden ticket'' (copyright = me!) and how we love them on here!

mwjn

Hi Coupon-Mad

Brilliant thanks for updating me I will remove it

Can you do one last review I have made the main points why the POFA has not been met and I just want confirmation that you think it all looks ok and I will submit it

Also I will submit in the PCN Parking Eye sent me in Photos

The Rejection Letter from ParkingEye and also my Original Appeal Letter so that POPLA have all evidence

Many thanks for all your help on this

Coupon-mad

You can't have all this because the PCN did arrive in time (by day 15 counting the parking event as day one). You point is really just that this is a non-POFA PCN, for whatever reason, PE have not used the wording on the back about keeper liability:

Right to Claim Unpaid Parking Charges from the Keeper of Vehicle – Schedule 4 Paragraph 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)

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 & 12.

The notice must be given – Schedule 4 Paragraph 9 (4) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)

ParkingEye have failed to fulfil the conditions which state that the keeper must be served with a compliant NTK in accordance with paragraph 9 (4), which stipulates a mandatory 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 NTK was delivered by post.

The NTK sent for the Registered Keeper arrived some 14 days after the alleged event. Even if they had posted it on the same day that they describe as the ‘Date Issued’ (which previous cases suggest ParkingEye never do in any case at all because they use a third party batch-mail system, Whistl or iMail or similar, which adds up to a week before a letter is posted) it would be impossible for the notice to have been actually delivered and deemed ‘served’ or given, within the 'relevant period' as required under paragraph 9(4)(b).

This means that ParkingEye have failed to act in time for keeper liability to apply.

No it doesn't. They have acted in time but not used POFA wording.

mwjn

Hi Coupon-Mad

I have removed the section and I have looked at schedule 4 and included so more concise example for Non-POFA does it look now ok?

Thanks I do appreciate all your assistance on this, I dont want to mess it up

Hopefully it is now ready to submit and sorry for asking you to proof read it

Coupon-mad

Yes that's perfect - this is the killer point:

Upon reviewing the NTK, ParkingEye Ltd have omitted any mention of the conditions as outlined in sub-paragraph 9 (2) (f).

mwjn

Hi Coupon-Mad

Brilliant

Many thanks for all your help

I will be sent off today to POPLA

Thankyou