PoFA wording - invalid?

MINTZ

Hi a small query and apologies if this has been asked and answered before. Have received a PCN from ParkingEye. It has PoFA wording at the back which I assume is standard to all its PCNs. The requirement under para 9(2) PoFA is that the notice should "inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full". The PCN I have does the first bit but doesn't tell me that the parking charges have not been paid in full (though this might be implied especially as it goes on to warn me of the consequences if it is not paid in full within 29 days). Does this omission make the PCN invalid and if so what should I do?

nosferatu1001

No, it does not make it invalid
Its an invoice.

All it could *potentiallly* do is make it so the KEEPER cannot be held liable, because that is ALL POFA compliance gives them.
And I doubt this would be seen as severe enough to breach that.

Coupon-mad

ParkingEye PCNs posted in time & with that paragraph, would be considered compliant by POPLA and by any court, IMHO.

First thing, before appealing, is ALWAYS try a complaint to the retailer/landowner.

MINTZ

Thanks, I assume though that this will just delay things. Shouldn't I just get on with appealing? Perhaps I complain to the landowner (a hospital) at the same time.

nosferatu1001

Well newbies thread takes you through this quite clearly
It very clearly tells you to complain to the landowner

Coupon-mad

MINTZ wrote: »

Thanks, I assume though that this will just delay things. Shouldn't I just get on with appealing? Perhaps I complain to the landowner (a hospital) at the same time.

Nope.

With PE, if you rush appealing and then start POPLA, it is then too late to complain. PE will tell any landowner to get lost if the case is already at POPLA stage. Why risk that?

Do it the other way around, and delay the first appeal by a few weeks.