5 parking tickets from ParkingEye

willrhyd

Hi,

So over the last month I, as the registered keeper, have received 5 PCNs from a Parking Eye operated car park. The backstory is that this car park was regularly used by the local residents of the flat. Apparently it was fine to use overnight and that they had never been stung. Sure enough no charges for nigh on a year. However in May this year I received two notices captured using ANPR dating back to March, which I paid out of fear mainly. It seems they had suddenly started enforcing the parking restrictions or the restrictions had changed to be 24 hour (not sure which).

Later in May three more arrived so we're now up to five. Two of these are over the 14 days between event and issue, one wasn't. I've appealed all three on those grounds since I can't remember who was driving on those occassions. They'll probably reject them all anyway and I can then go to POPLA. My question is do I have grounds to argue that the delay in sending the tickets out did not allow time to adjust my behaviour (and to advice anyone else who might use my car) and so the subsequent tickets are unfair? I have obviously stopped using this car park overnight. To compound problems I was away on holiday so didn't receive the tickets until I returned.

The other thing I was wondering is does £500 in charges represent a fair charge for loss of business for 5 counts of using the car park, all from about 19:00 - 07:00 when all the businesses are shut?? I presume not but then I don't know the legal aspect of these things.

I can accept paying the first two tickets, I'll have to since the chances of a refund are probably nil. However it feels rather rough to face having to cough up for all five when I changed my behaviour from the first ticket I received and the car was never left there during business hours anyway.

My appeals are currently in with Parking Eye and I'm awaiting the rejection so I can go to POPLA but would appreciate some help when I have to come up with my next move.

One thing I should add is that I am a regular customer of Halfords which is one of the businesses on the site, I bought a £1200 bike from them last year and regularly go in for bits and bobs. Would it be a good idea to take my case to them to see what they can do about it since surely they're the ones employing these charlatans?

Quentin

Everyone is politely asked to read up on this in the Newbies FAQ thread near the top of the forum before starting a new thread

Go there now to learn about the game you are now caught up in

See #1 for advice on the two pronged initial action to take (appeal and complain to the landowner/retailer)

See #3 for advice on popla

Umkomaas

You can forget the 2 already paid - done, dusted, build a bridge, get over it (them)!

The 2 further 'Golden Tickets' can be won at POPLA, provided the driver hasn't been identified (edit your first post if that's the case there) - did you use the initial appeal template from the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #1?

The other ticket will need to be argued on other points once you get your POPLA Code for that one - NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #3.

One thing I should add is that I was a regular customer of Halfords which is one of the businesses on the site, I bought a £1200 bike from them last year and regularly go in for bits and bobs. Would it be a good idea to take my case to them to see what they can do about it since surely they're the ones employing these charlatans?

Don't ask, don't get, but Halfords and PE aren't usual bedfellows. TPS seem to be more cosy with Halfords.

Is it a Halfords exclusive car park - or is it multi retail, in which case you'll need to seek out the landowner or the managing agent.

willrhyd

Yes I used the template which someone helpfully sent me. It's a multi retail car park, I'll send Halfords a message tomorrow explaining what's happened. Hopefully they'll be more interested in keeping a customer than bothering about parking charges.

Ralph-y

and ...... it could be helpful to let them know that you where looking ,,, thinking about an even more expensive bike in the near future :eek:
Ralph:cool:

Coupon-mad

My question is do I have grounds to argue that the delay in sending the tickets out did not allow time to adjust my behaviour (and to advice anyone else who might use my car) and so the subsequent tickets are unfair?

No. Forget that and forget 'no loss.'

If you are still within 28 days of the PCNs being received in May (late May?!) then guess what, you CAN appeal those two that you paid, as well! On the basis that they are non POFA, you re the keeper, and you want a POPLA code.

One redeeming factor of PE, is they WILL consider an appeal, even if a PCN was paid.

willrhyd

So I've messaged Halfords via their Facebook customer service profile. So far they seem sympathetic and have said they will look into it. Meanwhile no news from PE on the appeals, watch this space I guess.

willrhyd

No. Forget that and forget 'no loss.'

If you are still within 28 days of the PCNs being received in May (late May?!) then guess what, you CAN appeal those two that you paid, as well! On the basis that they are non POFA, you re the keeper, and you want a POPLA code.

One redeeming factor of PE, is they WILL consider an appeal, even if a PCN was paid.

Ah, a shame I didn't know that, bit too late.

willrhyd

Update:

So I had no luck from Halfords. I've now got my POPLA codes though, I've adapted a template to argue two of the tickets on the grounds that the NTK was issued over 14 days after the initial event:

I haven't submitted this yet, the deadline for POPLA appeal is the 31st of July.




POPLA Ref ______
Civil Enforcement Parking Charge Notice no _____

A notice to keeper was issued on ________ and received by me, the registered keeper of _______ for an alleged contravention of breach of the terms and conditions of use at ________. I am writing to you as the registered keeper and would be grateful if you would please consider my appeal for the following reasons.


1) This Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the time between the date of event and the date of issue.

2)The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.

3) The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

4) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice



1) This Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the time between the dates of event and issue.

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 are met as stated in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 & 12. ParkingEye have failed to fulfil these conditions which state that the keeper must be served with a compliant NTK in accordance with paragraph 9, 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. Furthermore,!
paragraph 9(5) states:
The relevant period...
is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended;

The NTK sent to myself as Registered Keeper arrived some 4 weeks after the alleged!
event. Even if they had posted it on the same day that they describe as the Date Issued
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.!




2)The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.

In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received.
No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person. Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay, not by POPLA, nor the operator, nor even in court. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a POFA-compliant NTK. The burden of proof rests with the Operator, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot !!!8211;they will fail to show I can be liable because the driver was not me. The vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:-!

Understanding keeper liability
There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. There is no reasonable presumption; in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''No lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from a keeper, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA. This exact finding was made in a very similar case with the same style NTK in 6061796103 v ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found: ''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.''

3) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.!

Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).!

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

nosferatu1001

If it is issued 12 days after, then it cannot have been received within 14 days IF they issued close to a weekend.
So, what are the issue dates?

KeithP

Section 3) The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself is missing.