Parking Eye Tower Road Newquay Out of Hours

maddycat

This is what I wrote to POPLA:

Dear POPLA,

On the _______, ParkingEye Ltd. issued a parking charge to myself (as keeper of the vehicle) highlighting that the above mentioned vehicle had been recorded via their automatic number plate recognition system for “either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park longer than permitted.” There was no windscreen ticket on the vehicle - the notice to keeper was sent via post.

As the registered keeper I wish to refute these charges and have this PCN cancelled on the following grounds:
1. The Notice to Keeper does not comply with sub-paragraph 9 (2 & 5) and is not POFA compliant - ParkingEye’s own documentation (attached) shows that the event to which they refer occurred on ________, but they did not issue the PCN until __________, more than a month later.
2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge.

Please see below for details
1) This Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the dates and the wording used.

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 the 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 33 days after the alleged event. - see the attached PDF from ParkingEye with the ‘event date’ of _______ and the issue date of ____________ (ie, over one month later.)


2)The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.
At no point have ParkingEye provided any proof as to the identity of the driver of the vehicle; nor have I provided them with the identity of the driver (nor do I intend to).

I have contested this with ParkingEye with regards to their PCN reference ________, but they have written to me (dated ______) to say I have been unsuccessful and provided POPLA reference ________________.

I sincerely hope you are able to help me.

Redx

if PE have not included any proof of adhering to POFA in the evidence pack , say so , ditto with not proving they have transferred liability

search for recent popla rebuttals and use their wording to form your own, but stay within the 2000 character limit

look for any other proof (or lack of proof) in their evidence pack that supports your case, including the contracts and the signage, as well as that POFA failure

post your proposed rebuttal below, for checking


and pm crabman or soolin and ask for them to be merged, like I said

Coupon-mad

Should be an easy win, if this was a Golden ticket (not a term to use for POPLA!).

You would have been better replying on your old thread today as we could have all seen the background and know it was a Golden ticket. As long as it is, you win!

maddycat

Here is what I have got so far. It's hard to get it under 2000 characters and I'm not sure how to word the signage section.

Dear Sirs,
Ref. POPLA appeal _____ 
In response to the "evidence pack" submitted by ParkingEye.
1) At no point did ParkingEye in their “evidence pack” address the fact that the PCN was delivered to the registered keeper 33 days after the alleged incident (Delivery _____, alleged event _______). ParkingEye have not denied it so I take this as agreed by them.
This Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the dates and the wording used.

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 the 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’’

2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.
At no point have ParkingEye provided any proof as to the identity of the driver of the vehicle; nor have I provided them with the identity of the driver (nor do I intend to).
3.Poor signage / signage does not comply to the BPA:CoP
In rebuttal to the claim by ParkingEye that the signage is clearly displayed, and there is signage at the car park entrance, I will refer to the BPA:CoP, which ParkingEye fails to comply with, despite claiming otherwise: Section 18, paragraph 2 (S18P2)
At the entrance to the car park, the sign does not state that the car park is not to be used outside of 8am to 11pm.
Kind regards,

I shall check the forum again tomorrow. Many thanks.
I have also PM'd crabman to ask for the posts to be merged.

Redx

take out all the waffle for starters, bullet points only , no header or footer


the above appears to be your popla appeal, not a rebuttal

Coupon-mad

You only need this!

At no point did ParkingEye in their “evidence pack” address the fact that the PCN was delivered to the registered keeper 33 days after the alleged incident (Delivery _____, alleged event _______). ParkingEye have not denied it so I take this as agreed by them.
This Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the dates and the wording used.

Redx

as above


read this one but dont copy it word for word, but read the points about POFA and signage after I adapted it, if you need to refine your rebuttal then adapt it by picking relevant stuff out from that one below


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5951197/reply-to-popla-cel


and look at these examples as well


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5893321/pcn-on-university-campus-popla-appeal-checkpost #19


and https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74772098#Comment_74772098

maddycat

This was at the bottom of ParkingEye's response to POPLA:

Please be advised, this Parking Charge was not issued under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As such, the
appellant’s comments regarding the Parking Charge Notice being issued incorrectly are not relevant in the case.

What does this mean?


Here is my rebuttal thus far:

*At no point did ParkingEye in their “evidence pack” address the fact that the PCN was delivered to the registered keeper 33 days after the alleged incident (Delivery _____, alleged event _______). ParkingEye have not denied it so I take this as agreed by them.
This Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the dates and the wording used.

*At no point in my communications with ParkingEye did I mention: “You have stated that you do not believe that the Parking Charge amount is a pre-estimation of loss, or that it is extravagant, unfair or unreasonable.” Yet it appears ParkingEye is quoting me in their communications with POPLA. The text is clearly a copy-pasted template, much of which is inaccurate or indeed irrelevant to this case, suggesting a certain lack of detail on the part of the operator.

* Furthermore it simply would not be possible to read any signs whilst in a moving car, and certainly not have read them sufficiently to have deemed to fully understand the T&C's.


Does point 2 even make sense?

Also for a rebuttal about the signage, the person who drove into the car park just looked at the part of the sign which said parking tariffs apply between 8am and 11pm and not the bit directly underneath which says No parking outside of these times in capitals. Even though there were other cars in the car park and no barrier closing off the car park. Not really sure how to word this or do I just leave it?

Should I put this in?:

* Signage- Specifically mentioned in the BPA Code of Practice as the use of capital letters and mixing large and small font are also deemed unclear as far as signage is concerned ParkingEye have mixed this into their signs despite the fact they appear to be new and should match the requirements of the BPA CoP.


In response to the number of tickets received this is the breakdown:

Ticket #1 - partner paid it without my knowledge
Ticket #2 - this one
Ticket #3 - another golden ticket - awaiting POPLA code though it has been well over a month
Assumed ticket #4 - did not materialise so hopefully long forgotten

Coupon-mad

Leave ALL the rest out, just use the bit I copied.

Please be advised, this Parking Charge was not issued under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As such, the
appellant’s comments regarding the Parking Charge Notice being issued incorrectly are not relevant in the case.

What does this mean?

It means they are trying to hoodwink POPLA.

maddycat

Comments submitted. Thank you. Will update with their answer as soon as they decide.