ParkingEye Beehive Cambridge - 2 PCNs

MistyZ

AceOfBass wrote: »

More concerning, she admitted that there was little chance they'd know which appeals were 'lost' until the appellant got in touch to ask!

That baffles me. Like you say, the very definition of failure, if it's true. I don't believe it, I think the kindest interpretation would be that they are so snowed under that they're not checking. Meanwhile, how many appellants will lose hope & cough up I wonder.

Good luck, sounds like you're on top of this.

AceOfBass

Very, very pleased to report that my appeal was successful, primarily due to ParkingEye failing to transfer liability to the hirer (by not including required docs in the NtH). :j :j :j

Enormous thanks to all those who commented!

Was very nervous that this wouldn't work, in light of recent rejections on the NtH hirer docs point. I stressed heavily in my Evidence Pack comments that where ParkingEye showed their correspondence and timeline, they showed only the NtH's. The original NtK and finance company response were in a different section of the pack. Fortunately, the assessor accepted it (or just didn't go for the lazy option).

An interesting point picked up by the assessor was that the Evidence Pack did not include a statement of hirer liability from the finance company (VWFS). Instead, the assessor says that the EP contained only a hire agreement. Technically, i'm not sure VWFS's response even qualified as that? It was just a plain unbranded page with hirer's name and address and hire end date.
Anyhow, the lack of a liability statement was one of my main EP rebuttal comments, but I guess I'll never know whether they would've spotted it regardless.

I'm happy to provide my full appeal text and my EP comments, if anyone feels they would be of use.

Decision: Successful

Assessor Name: Natalie Hill

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for either not purchasing a valid pay and display ticket, by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted, or by not entering your registration details via the terminal.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that as the hirer of the vehicle the operator is in breach of the Code of Practice because it failed to deliver a notice to hirer that was fully compliant with the requirements of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act (PoFA) 2012. The appellant advises that the operator has not show that the individual it is pursuing is the driver of the vehicle and potentially liable of the charge. The appellant has indicated that there is no evidence of Landowner Authority. The appellant argues that no grace period was given. The appellant states that the signage in the 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. The appellant argues that there is no evidence to show the ANPR is reliable. The appellant has included additional comments with each ground of appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant has been identified as the hirer of the vehicle, as such I will be considering his liability for the PCN. The operator has provided photographic images of the signage which states: “3-hour max stay… Customer only car park.” The signage also states: “Failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £100.” The operator has provided Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) images showing the vehicle entering the car park at 13:29, and exiting 16:47, totalling a stay of 3 hours and 18 minutes. In this case the appellant has questioned Landowner Authority. I have examined the operator evidence and I can see a document which confirms an agreement between the landowner and the operator. After taking into consideration the criteria set out in the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, I am satisfied that this document fulfils the requirements set out in 7.3 of the BPA Code of Practice and shows the operator does have Landowner Authority on this site. The appellant has advised that the operator is in breach of the Code of Practice because it failed to deliver a notice to hirer that was fully compliant with the requirements of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act (PoFA) 2012. He has also argued that the operator has not shown that the individual it is pursuing is the driver of the vehicle and potentially liable of the charge. He has referred to the right to not name the driver and keeper liability. In response to the above point I have reviewed the operator evidence and I can see that a Notice to Hirer was set to the appellant on 19 December 2018 this was after a PCN was issued to the hire company on 15 November 2018 and a reminder on 24 November 2018. The PCN indicates that the hire company had provided the operator with a copy of the appellants hire agreement and statement of liability. Taking into consideration PoFA 2012 I can see that after the reminder was issued to the hire company on 24 November and the hire company provided a copy of the hire agreement on 18 December 2018. The PCN was then issued to the appellant the next day on 19 December 2018. I therefore consider the PCN itself to be correct in regard to the time in which it was issued and the content, however when I have examined the evidence, I can see that the operator has only provided a copy of the hire agreement and has not provided the statement of liability. As the operator has not provided this document I am unable to establish if the appellant had been sent all the required documents as per PoFA 2012. On this basis, I must allow this appeal because the operator has failed to provide which evidence which shows that the appellant had signed a statement of liability when he hired the vehicle, and that this was sent to the appellant along with the PCN. As I have allowed this appeal, I will not need to consider any other points by the appellant.

Coupon-mad

Yay, nice one.

Annoying to see that POPLA seem prepared to accept that these documents were attached, just by a PPC supplying copies in the evidence pack, when appellants are CLEARLY telling POPLA no enclosures at all arrived.

So, the Assessor is saying they would have accepted the situation from P/Eye if they'd included the 'statement of liability' in this POPLA evidence pack.

Leaving appellants no way to prove a negative.

Well done though!