parking eye london

peazy

Out of 11 tickets 9 were issued 14 days after the event.
I take it that counts as pe failing the ntk for those 9?
They all came in the post in one day

peazy

All tickets issued 05/04/2018


event 23/02/2018


event06/03/2018


event08/03/2018


event 09/03/2018




event 13/03/2018




event 14/03/2018




event 16/03/2018


event 21/03/2018


event 22/03/2018


event 26/03/2018


event 29/03/2018

peazy

The ticket which was event 22/03/2018 and issued 05/04/2018 falls on the 15th day, does that count as a golden ticket?

Redx

not if it arrived on day 15 , where day zero is the date of the contravention

as well as the dates, look for that pofa paragraph , if its missing they know they failed pofa

also , what are the contraventions they are alleging ?

two visits ?

one long visit instead of 2 short visits ?

overstays ?

what ?

or are there various reasons

seems to me like the driver committed the same issue many times over , which they believe broke their rules or the signage etc

peazy

The pofa paragraph is missing.
They alleged the driver stayed more than 2 hours

Redx

so there is 2 hours free parking and they allege that the driver overstayed

so does the driver say they double dipped by making 2 short visits ? or not

I cannot see PE issuing a dozen tickets for a dozen double dipping scenarios

they get a few wrong but not that many and not so consistently

peazy

The driver did double dip and suspect pe know what they doing
Perhaps this is a new tatic
However I know of quite a few cases were friends have been unfairly charged due to double dipping,
sometimes multiple times

Redx

unfair is not relevant here, unless these people can persuade a judge in a court of law

BEAVIS overstayed on a free car park and lost 3 times in 3 courts to 11 judges, and PE won

I dont think you or your friends interpretations of the "law" will carry any weight

either its double dipping and not one continuous long stay, or it isnt

2 short visits (double dipping" can be a defence point , if the driver has not failed the terms and conditions

KEEPER LIABILITY under POFA2012 is a better argument when PE have failed POFA2012

it is mainly the foolish and naive that blab about who was driving

peazy

Wise words indeed, totally agree with you
I will use the template with the pofa as an argument for the charges that arrived after 14 days
Thanks again for all your help

Umkomaas

You need to deal with each NtK as a separate entity with a separate appeal (cross-referenced with the unique PCN number) for each one. You might need to set up a spreadsheet to project manage each one through. Start with the earliest NtK and work from there. One at a time, via their online portal, don't go cramming the lot in one envelope and launching into a postbox.

Use the standard initial appeal template from the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #1. Do not attempt to alter it yourself in your own words, but for those NtKs without the PoFA warning, you could add the following, which could see PE cancel the respective charges as you've rumbled their deficiencies.

As your Notice to Keeper has been given outside of the 'relevant period' prescribed in Schedule 4, paragraph 9 (5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, you are in no legal position to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for this charge. As I will not be providing you with the driver's name and address for service (as is my right), I suggest you cancel this charge with immediate effect.

Should you continue to pursue me, despite the above warning, I will immediately raise complaints about your conduct with both the British Parking Association and the DVLA.

IMPORTANT - Just one critical question given the most unusual number of 'late' NtK's issued by PE - is the vehicle a hire/lease/courtesy/company vehicle?