ParkingEye - Mecca Bingo Dewsbury

NewYorkRoadRunner

How does this read:

Attention: Mr John Gallagher

POPLA code xxxxxxxxxx - formal complaint. The Assessor has erred in their understanding of the POFA 2012

This is a formal complaint to be referred to the Lead Adjudicator, after which I will complain to ISPA because this decision errs in law and (unless POPLA has a different evidence pack than I do) discloses an alarming lack of knowledge about Schedule 4 of the POFA.

My PCN contained no PoFA to the keeper. The assessor, Anita Burns has erred in law and the decision must be reversed with immediate effect.

The PCN has no reference at all about the 9(2)f warning about keeper liability whatsoever on it and was sent on a Thursday and was deemed to be delivered the following Monday (2 working weekdays later) which is too late.

I look forward to you response and your agreement that my appeal should be reversed.

Thank you

Umkomaas

Try this:

Dear Mr Gallagher

I am writing in relation to (put in your various reference details) as a result of a decision made by your Assessor (name) who has made two fundamental errors in his (her) understanding of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4) which have resulted in my appeal being rejected.

PoFA is the law of the land. It has strict requirements, especially in the context of transferring liability for the payment of a parking charge from the driver to the keeper. In all respects, ParkingEye (the parking company involved) have failed to meet these requirements, and as the driver has not been identified by them, they are not in a position to transfer liability to me, the registered keeper.

In actual fact, ParkingEye recognise they cannot transfer liability and have not even issued a notice marked ‘Notice To Keeper’.

But your Assessor has found for ParkingEye by stating the following:

The relevant period for the purpose of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning on the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended. On review of the evidence provided by the operator, it is evident that the date of contravention is 3 February 2019 and it issued the PCN on 14 February 2019. I have reviewed the notice against the relevant sections of PoFA, and I am satisfied that the operator has complied with the act.

This is clearly a miscalculation by the Assessor of the 14 days rule - as follows:

According to Paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of POFA, the relevant period for delivery of a notice to keeper was the 14 day period from Monday 4 February 2019 to Sunday 17 February 2019 inclusive.

Even if the PCN had been posted on the "Issue Date" of Thursday 14 February 2019 it would be deemed to have been delivered 2 working days later on Monday 18 February 2019 (i.e. after the relevant period had ended).

The failure to meet the strict time limits of PoFA clearly means the registered keeper (me) is not liable for the charge.

Further, in cases where ParkingEye know they are not in law able to hold the registered keeper liable, they omit the critical warning from paragraph 9 (2) (f) of Schedule 4 of PoFA that they are required to issue in their Notice to Keeper, viz:

(f)warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—

(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and

(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,

the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;


This is clearly missing from the ParkingEye letter (a copy of which is provided for your perusal).

So on these two counts, your Assessor’s statement:

I have reviewed the notice against the relevant sections of PoFA, and I am satisfied that the operator has complied with the act. As such, the appellant, as the registered keeper is now liable for the charge.

is fundamentally flawed and one which must be reversed.

As ParkingEye are one of the most litigious parking operators in the country, it is anticipated that this will become a court case in due course. Please be in no doubt, that should my case result in legal proceedings against me, I will be requiring your Assessor to give evidence to the court.

I look forward to your urgent intervention and your confirmation that my appeal is now upheld in my favour.

Coupon-mad

after which I will complain to ISPA

ISPA doesn't exist any more.

Use Umkomaas' version and add this (below) as I BET ParkingEye even admitted 'please note we are not relying on the POFA'?! Check their evidence blurb, they say that when they have fielded a non POFA version!

In actual fact, ParkingEye recognise they cannot transfer liability and have not even issued a notice marked ‘Notice To Keeper’.
Further, in their evidence pack, ParkingEye admitted:

''Please note (then quote what PE admitted - I bet they did!).

NewYorkRoadRunner

Thank you so much for your replies

Umkomaas

Coupon-mad wrote: »

ISPA doesn't exist any more.

Use Umkomaas' version and add this (below) as I BET ParkingEye even admitted 'please note we are not relying on the POFA'?! Check their evidence blurb, they say that when they have fielded a non POFA version!

@OP. Will you please check the PE evidence pack (sent to you following your appeal to POPLA) whether they have admitted that they are not relying on PoFA.

That will firmly put the lid on things (alongside my letter) and get this shut out of your life.

Please confirm.

NewYorkRoadRunner

From the evidence pack:

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.

Umkomaas

NewYorkRoadRunner wrote: »

From the evidence pack:

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.

BINGO!

How can the Assessor have found the PE initial charge letter to be PoFA compliant if PE themselves state that they are not pursuing under PoFA.

Add that to your letter to JG.

NewYorkRoadRunner

LOL!

One more note, ok to just email info@popla.co.uk? Or put my complaint in writing?

Coupon-mad

Email to the complaints email they give in their FAQS of course.

NewYorkRoadRunner

All done - thank you all for any advice, it is appreciated. I shall post any updates when received. Hopefully this is the end of the road.