ParkingEye PCN Riverside Retail Park, Chelmsford "Golden PCN Ticket"

Nay44

Dear All,


I have received a PCN from ParkingEye as the registered Keeper of a vehicle which was parked at the Riverside retail park in Chelmsford.


The Driver of the vehicle parked the car in the car park, went to costa for a good 30 minutes (it was very busy that day as it always is on a Saturday), then spent a good hour in Home sense where they made a purchase, they then decided to look in Decathlon and Matalan which took another good 30 minutes, before heading over to McDonalds's where they were for a good 30 minutes finally returning to the car to queue a good 10/15 minutes to exit the car park as there was a substantial queue!


As the registered owner of the vehicle I received a PCN in the post (it is worth noting at this stage that the PCN received is what is referred to on here as a "Golden Ticket" where There is no mention of POFA/keeper liability after 29 days). After doing some research, reading the Newbie post and reading up on other peoples threads on PCN's on here I decided to appeal using the ParkingEye's online appeal service. There was no mention whatsoever of who the driver was.


As expected, ParkingEye have rejected my appeal and have provided me with the all important POPLA code. I have drafted a letter to upload onto the POPLA Appeal service and would be very grateful if you all could help/give advice.


Please see below draft:

---

Appeal POPLA code: XXXXXXXXXX


ParkingEye Ltd Reference: XXXXXX/XXXXXX


Vehicle Registration: XXXXXX


Vehicle Make: XXXXXXXX


Vehicle Model: XXXXX





Dear POPLA,

On the XXXXX, ParkingEye Ltd. issued a parking charge notice highlighting that the above mentioned vehicle had been recorded via their automatic number plate recognition system for “ remaining at the car park for longer than the stay authorised or without authorisation, in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the signage”

As the registered keeper I wish to refute these charges on the following grounds:
1) The Notice to Keeper does not comply with sub-paragraph 9 (2 & 5)
2) ParkingEye Ltd. lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespass


1) The Notice to Keeper does not comply with sub-paragraph 9 (2 & 5)



The Notice to Keeper does not warn the keeper that, if after a period of 28 days, ParkingEye Ltd. has the right to to claim unpaid parking charges as specified under sub-paragraph 9 (2) (f) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)

POFA 2012 requires that an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle, if certain conditions are met. As sub-paragraph 9 (2) (f) highlights a NTK much adhere to the following points:





The notice must be given by—
warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—
(i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
(ii) the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,
the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;





Upon reviewing the NTK, ParkingEye Ltd have omitted any mention of the conditions as outlined in sub-paragraph 9 (2) (f). The appellant feels that the operator has failed to adhere to the conditions outlined under POFA 2012 and therefore breaches the documented legislation.



2) ParkingEye Ltd. lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespassing

It is suggested that ParkingEye Ltd. does not have proprietary interest in the land and merely acting as agents for the owner/occupier. Therefore, I ask that ParkingEye Ltd. be asked to provide strict proof that they have the necessary authorisation at this location in the form of a signed and dated contract with the landowner, which specifically grants them the standing to make contracts with drivers and to pursue charges in their own name in the courts. Documentary evidence must pre-date the parking event in question and be in the form of genuine copy of the actual site agreement/contract with the landowner/occupier and not just a signed ‘witness statement’ slip of paper saying it exists.

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:





7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.
7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:
a. the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
b. any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
c. any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
d. who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
e. the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement




In summary, these points demonstrate the claim by ParkingEye Ltd is invalid and should the claim continue, further action and evidence requested in this appeal is required from ParkingEye Ltd.

---

Many Thanks!

Nay44

Thought I would add that the Photo of the vehicle on the way out of the car park is very unclear as you cannot tell the make or model of the vehicle. Not sure if this helps the case

Nay44

Tried to add a photo but it won't allow me as I am a new user :-(

happybagger

Better photos often appear in their POPLA evidence

Nay44

Typical! Thanks for the heads up!

Umkomaas

Your POPLA appeal is very weak as it stands.

PE and The Riverside will go down in private parking legal history as this is the car park involved in the Beavis case. I’m very surprised if they managed to issue a non-compliant NtK for this particular location.

If PE have removed the ‘if after 29 days.....’ paragraph, it will be for a specific reason. It just won’t be because of a random failure to include it. So you need to try to ascertain from your parking event and from closely checking the NtK, why the para is omitted - nothing you’ve said in your introductory opening post gives any clues.

Could you
* confirm the date of the parking event
* confirm the date of issue shown on the NtK
* confirm the date of receipt by you
* confirm whether or not the vehicle is a company car or under a hire/lease agreement.

Beyond answers to the above Qs, the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #3 is a detailed advisory resource on how to construct a winning POPLA appeal, where there are ready-written templates for various appeal points for you to copy and paste. Every POPLA appeal should, as a minimum, include each relevant templated point.

Nay44

Thanks Umkomass,

The date of the parking event was Saturday 16th September 2017

The date of issue of the NtK was 28th September 2017
The date of receipt of the NtK was Monday 2nd October 2017.
The vehicle was not a company car, neither was it a hire/lease vehicle.

I understand that the dates above do not breach any rules for issue.

To be honest, the more I look into it the less of a case I believe I have, especially being that specific car park.

Tempted to just pay the discounted rate before it’s too late.

Many thanks!

Umkomaas

I understand that the dates above do not breach any rules for issue.

I disagree. Count the calendar days commencing on the day after the parking event (as day 1, the parking day is day 0) to the day of receipt and tell me what you come up with.

To be honest, the more I look into it the less of a case I believe I have, especially being that specific car park.

If the NtK is non compliant (and you haven’t identified the driver to PE) you have every case to fight this.

Tempted to just pay the discounted rate before it’s too late.

Don’t be so hasty!

Nay44

I count 16 days, however, I thought the letter had to be issued within 14 days of the offence and to be received within 2 working days of the letter issue date, in this case that would mean the letter date of 28th of September is within the 14 days and because I received it within the 2 working days of the letter issue date then this is a valid date and has not broken any rules?

The NtK definitely does not mention anywhere of the 29 days or of POFA 2012.

Many thanks!

Umkomaas

I count 16 days

I agree with you on that.

I thought the letter had to be issued within 14 days of the offence and to be received within 2 working days of the letter issue date

Nope! Because this is what the law says:

(4)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.
(5)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.

Nothing there about ‘2 working days’.

it is worth noting at this stage that the PCN received is what is referred to on here as a "Golden Ticket" where There is no mention of POFA/keeper liability after 29 days

You do, indeed Sir, have a Golden Ticket! As I said it’s not for nothing that PE omit the paragraph (which is now shown on the reverse of the NtK).

So it’s back to your POPLA appeal draft. Work your way through post #3 of the sticky, use as much template stuff as possible, but your opening appeal point will be ‘No Keeper Liability’. I expect PE will not contest this at POPLA.

It’s obviously a try-on to have the uninitiated, intimidated, frightened, naive, to be oblivious to the protection PoFA affords them, and either pay up or submit a weak, wishy-washy appeal with inputs like ‘I parked’, ‘I didn’t realise there was a time limit’ - then it’s ‘kerching’ for PE.

You’re now not going to be one of those. Let us see your draft POPLA appeal for critique and fine tuning. Do not inadvertently miss the POPLA deadline; PE are litigious and at The Riverside, the only thing they would likely need to say to a judge to win would be ‘Beavis-Supreme Court, Sir’

Nay44

Thanks Ummomaas!

Over the weekend I shall draft up a stronger POPLA appeal and post it on here before I submit.

Hope you have a great weekend!

:beer: