5 parking tickets from ParkingEye

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 House of Commons recently

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

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

willrhyd

KeithP wrote: »

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.

I took that part out as the template had a lot of links and pictures taken that I haven't got and I didn't think I'd need that section since I was hoping the 14 day part would be enough. Do you think it would be better to put the signage in as well just in case?

willrhyd

I've put the following together for the third charge that arrived on the 6th of June:



[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]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. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]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:-
!!!8217;!!!8217;The notice must be given by!!!8212;
(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.!!!8217;!!!8217;

The applicable section here is (b) because the NTK was delivered by post. Furthermore,
paragraph 9(5) states:
!!!8217;!!!8217;The relevant period...
is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended!!!8217;!!!8217;[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]
The NTK sent to myself as Registered Keeper arrived some 16 days after the alleged
event. The issue date of the notice was 02/06/2018. I suggest that the notice arrived outside the !!!8220;relevant period!!!8221; due to the relatively long time, (12 days), between the event (22/05/2018) and processing of the notice (02/06/2018). it is reasonable that a letter posted on a Saturday may not arrive until the following Tuesday or, in this case, Wednesday. I maintain that the notice was not delivered and deemed !!!8216;served!!!8217; or 'given', within the 'relevant period' as required under paragraph 9(4)(b) of the POFA. This means that ParkingEye have failed to act in time for keeper liability to apply.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Is this likely to fly? I'm not sure how else I would go about proving that the ticket arrived after the 14 day period?
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif][/FONT]

The_Deep

Is this likely to fly? I'm not sure how else I would go about proving that the ticket arrived after the 14 day period?

You do not have to prove anything, that is for the claimant to do.

Umkomaas

POPLA Ref ______
Civil Enforcement Parking Charge Notice no _____

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.!

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:

Is this a Civil Enforcement case or a ParkingEye case?

Fundamental inconsistencies!

willrhyd

Umkomaas wrote: »

Is this a Civil Enforcement case or a ParkingEye case?

Fundamental inconsistencies!

Doh! It's a ParkingEye case.

System

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

I'm going to go with yes on this one.

BPA Code

Clause 9.5 - You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges. Such instances will be viewed as a serious and sanctionable instance of non-compliance and may go to the Professional Conduct Panel.

Clause 18.10 - Where there is a change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then you must make these terms and conditions clear on your signage. Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you must consider a transition to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes. Best practice would be the installation of additional/temporary signage at the entrance and throughout the site making it clear that new terms and conditions apply. This will ensure such that regular visitors who may be familiar with the previous terms become aware of the new ones.

Poor signs and the lack of information about changes to the terms of the car park are predatory. If you were a regular user of the car park, there is "estoppel" (as expressed by 18.10). Previous terms apply until such times that you were made aware of the changes to the terms of that car park.

Two items - predatory practices and estoppel to add to that.

The BPA Code is based on underlying legal concepts so it is better to quote the Code but further explain it with reference to the underlying law.

willrhyd

Success! All three successfully appealed.

Thanks for all the help

Umkomaas

willrhyd wrote: »

Success! All three successfully appealed.

Thanks for all the help

After all the help, you can't just tease us with a one-liner 'won 'em all'.

Bit more detail please?

Well done, in any case :T

willrhyd

Yes I guess a bit more detail is deserved sorry.

So I guess it was a straightforward case for these three really, I just used a previously successful claim for a Golden Ticket scenario. I have the letter template I used if anyone else wishes to use it however I can't paste it in as I can't post links. The letter doesn't really work without them though, I will try and post it up at some point if I can get past that issue. Note the "Civil Enforcement" discrepancy, it didn't seem to affect the outcome luckily. I've no idea if they actually read the thing. I mean if I was PE and received a six page letter that was obviously from a well informed forum I'd just roll over and move onto easier pickings as I imagine is the case.

However my crusade continues....

I'm now retrospectively appealing the two I paid on the same grounds. Parking Eye do apparently seem to consider appeals even after payment. I will update as I go, I might even have a little early Christmas present if I'm lucky