ParkingEye - more than 14 days before notification

NorfolkNewboy

Hi

I've tried looking for the best advice but unfortunately am not really sure of what to do.:(

My vehicle was parked at Mayflower Cruise Terminal, Southampton, on 11th May for approx 30mins to collect a family member from P&O Ventura but a ticket was not purchased.
The driver was instructed to use the Short Stay carpark by an employee but was not informed that payment was expected.
A large sign near the entrance to the carpark said "Cruise Passenger Parking" or words to that effect, so it was assumed that this formed part of the service provided by P&O.
The driver walked to a nearby Pay Point where the phrase "Not In Use" was displayed, so accepted this as confirmation that parking was free during the disembarkation process.

A PCN for £100 has been issued by ParkingEye, stating that the event occurred on 11th May and it was issued on 31st May. It arrived with me, the Registered Keeper, on 4th June.

Please can you suggest my best course of action?

Thank you.

Coupon-mad

A PCN for £100 has been issued by ParkingEye, stating that the event occurred on 11th May and it was issued on 31st May. It arrived with me, the Registered Keeper, on 4th June.

Search the forum for Golden Ticket, and read what the NEWBIES thread has to say!

You WILL win if you do it right!

You are the actual rk at the DVLA - yes? Not a lease car?

Don't ask where the NEWBIES thread is, or for a link to it, please. Can't stand that, when every post I make tells everyone exactly where to click...see below...

NorfolkNewboy

Thanks. I think I found a thread which is relevant and I have prepared this statement to send to PE in the first instance. Do you think it is OK or is it, perhaps, excessive and giving away too much info?


Dear Sir/Madam

I am writing to you in regards to a Parking Charge Notice; Reference number: xxxxx/yyyyy

Firstly, I would like to state that I respectfully decline your request to be provided with the name and address of the driver, as is my right, and secondly; as the registered keeper of the vehicle, I am challenging your parking notice on these grounds:

Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012: Recovery of Unpaid Parking Charges
6.2 Where a contravention is detected remotely (such as by cameras), the landholder may request registered keeper data from the DVLA immediately and must write to the registered keeper within 14 days seeking details of the driver or payment of the parking charge.

AOS Code Changes (effective 2 January 2018)
Clause 21.7 & 33.2
When applying for Keeper Details you must ensure that you adhere to the DVLA’s guidelines and requirements.

Given that your letter states that the event took place on 11/05/18 and that the letter was issued on 31/05/18 you have clearly failed to comply with these requirements.

Therefore, there will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 and offer me a POPLA code, or cancel the charge.

Should you have obtained the registered keeper's data from the DVLA without reasonable cause, please take this as formal notice that I reserve the right to sue your company and the landowner/principal, for a sum not less than £250 for any Data Protection Act breach. Your aggressive business practice and unwarranted threat of court for the ordinary matter of a driver using my car without causing any obstruction nor offence, has caused significant distress to me.

I do not give you consent to process data relating to me or this vehicle. I deny liability for any sum at all and you must consider this letter a Section 10 Notice under the DPA. You are required to respond within 21 days. I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.

I believe that your signs fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. Your unremarkable and obscure signs were not seen by the driver, are in very small print and the terms are not readable to drivers.

2. The driver assures me that they had obtained verbal permission by an ABP staff member to utilise the short stay car park. They were informed that there would be no charge so long as they did not stay long, as it was important to avoid causing an obstruction whilst collecting a family member who was returning from a cruise on P&O Ventura.

Southampton By-Laws states:
Obstruction or interference on the dock estate
37. No person shall:
(a) except with the permission of ABP, deposit or place on any part of the dock estate any goods or park any vehicle so as to obstruct any road, railway, building, mooring place, plant, machinery or apparatus or the access thereto; or
(b) without lawful authority, use, work, move or tamper with any plant, machinery, equipment or apparatus at the dock estate.

This clearly shows that parking was permitted with permission of ABP.

3. On entering the car park the driver observed a large sign stating “Parking for Cruise Passengers” or words to that effect.

This confirmed their belief that it was acceptable to remain here whilst waiting for their relative.

4. The driver further observed a Pay Station and, after parking, walked to inspect it. The illuminated screen displayed the phrase “Not In Use”. Photographic evidence of this is available.

This again re-inforced the message that parking was free during the disembarkation process.

5. The cameras only indicate the time of arrival and departure from the car park, they do not accurately reflect the amount of time the driver had spent parked in a parking bay. Rather, it includes the time spent entering, driving around and waiting for a bay as well as the time spent stationary in a parking bay. The driver claims that due to limited parking and having to wait for a space large enough to accommodate the vehicle to become available, the amount of minutes parked was considerably lower than what is quoted on the Parking Charge Notice.

7. The parking Company [Parking Eye] has failed to provide any evidence that they in fact have the right to issue the Parking Charge Notice. It is not unreasonable to request evidence that they have acquired authorisation from the landowner to do so.

8. Further to that point, it would not be unreasonable to request the current contract with the landowner be provided as proof to ensure it does not include the known, and frequent clause that does not allow charges to be made to first time offenders who have accidentally broken the rules, as opposed to regular offenders who do so repeatedly.

On behalf of the driver, I request Parking Eye provide me with the proof above requested if they wish to pursue a Parking Charge.

Kind Regards

I further worry that mentioning visiting a Pay Point allows a complaint that the T&Cs were available.

Thanks in advance.

The_Deep

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.

Redx

if PE failed POFA2012 then as keeper there is no need for such a detailed and long winded appeal, what heppened on the day is not relevant to the keeper, as the keeper is not liable - end of story - period, nothing to see, move along


go to the top of this forum , count 3 threads down and read the NEWBIES FAQ thread , especially post #1 (like CM told you to do)


use the one size fits all template appeal from that post, and add the following

As you have failed to send me , the keeper , the PCN within the statutory 14 day timescale required by POFA2012, then I as keeper am not liable for this invoice and you should cancel it immediately , or provide a POPLA code so POPLA can cancel it on your behalf. The driver will not be named, so do not ask

NorfolkNewboy

Despite using PE's internet appeal system (19/6/18) I have today received a FINAL NOTICE for £100 telling me that 28days have passed and the appeal period is over.

I can "make a late appeal .. including all information" which, if it is unsuccessful, will provide me with details of POPLA.

It provides 2 possibilities: writing to their Appeals Department or using their online system.

I have a screen shot of my details and the first lines of my initial response, showing date and time.

What would you advise, please?

Thanks.

Grimble

Short and sweet, email you appealed on their system on date.

fisherjim

Mayflower Cruise Terminal is not relevant land either.

NorfolkNewboy

Appeal submitted BUT I now notice there is a sentence following their "accepted" note.
It states :
Please note, you will receive further confirmation that we have received your appeal by email. If you do not receive this email within 24 hours please contact us again via our website ] [MY emboldment]

I didn't spot that last time (assuming it was there) so to some degree this is my own fault: A WARNING TO OTHERS!

Coupon-mad

It's not your fault, PE have NEVER previously acknowledged appeals by email and this was never something to expect to look out for.

The_Deep

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.