ParkingEye - check my homework

The_Deep

An absolute no brainer, I wonder why PE pressed this.

Todd_J_Bonzalez

I still don't follow why they do it though? If they did issue them all with POFA then the 1 per cent would also have to cough up - so why don't they? What's the advantage to the operator of a non-POFA ticket? Why don't they just have the one standard ticket?

Umkomaas

Todd_J_Bonzalez wrote: »

I still don't follow why they do it though? If they did issue them all with POFA then the 1 per cent would also have to cough up - so why don't they? What's the advantage to the operator of a non-POFA ticket? Why don't they just have the one standard ticket?

I thought you understood this stuff now?

The reason they don't include PoFA (especially PE) is because they have failed to meet one or more of the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4).

They simply cannot hold the keeper liable unless they meet the requirements. But that doesn't stop hundreds upon hundreds of keepers stumping up, regardless.

Ignorance costs!

Todd_J_Bonzalez

I think I understand it, but I'm not a lawyer...
I assume they don't use POFA because they often don't get the tickets out within the 14 day period to make them valid, and as you say rely on ignorance and people pay up.
But that also means if they don't use POFA and you put them to proof who the driver was they are stuffed.
Is that it?

Umkomaas

I think I understand it, but I'm not a lawyer...

Neither am I, nor are the vast majority of regulars. We learn by reading and reading. How else can we do it? MSE don't run training courses for us!

I assume they don't use POFA because they often don't get the tickets out within the 14 day period to make them valid

Among many other requirements they might trip up on!

But that also means if they don't use POFA and you put them to proof who the driver was they are stuffed.

Potentially, POPLA have made errors on this of late and found against the keeper, despite PoFA non compliance.

If it ever got to court (as hundreds of cases each month do), there's always going to be the risk of the Judge asking 'Were you the driver of the vehicle?', then you could be in a bit of a corner!

Todd_J_Bonzalez

Yes, I wouldn't want to put myself in contempt of court or at risk of perjury, but could a judge draw an adverse inference from a person telling him/her they wish not to answer the question of who was driving - it's up to the operator to satisfy the court the appellant was driving.
I suppose it depends on the judge how he interprets that!
I'm not sure how it works in small claims courts, are decisions made on a balance of probabilities or beyond reasonable doubt?

KeithP

Todd_J_Bonzalez wrote: »

I'm not sure how it works in small claims courts, are decisions made on a balance of probabilities or beyond reasonable doubt?

On a balance of probabilities.

Coupon-mad

I think I understand it, but I'm not a lawyer...
I assume they don't use POFA because they often don't get the tickets out within the 14 day period to make them valid, and as you say rely on ignorance and people pay up.

Yep, they sometimes issue a PCN late and so can't cite the POFA.

But that also means if they don't use POFA and you put them to proof who the driver was they are stuffed.
Is that it?

Yes but as we've said, only forums like this, know that fact. We're in the minority.

Most people would have long since appealed and blabbed about who was driving and then the non POFA-ness doesn't matter any more and PE have their victim in their sights.

Also, we had one this month, a P/Eye non-POFA NTK that they admitted to POPLA was non-POFA and the appellant poster called them out on, EXACTLY like you did...and POPLA got it WRONG and said it was a POFA one!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5971714/parkingeye-mecca-bingo-dewsbury

:eek: