Company vehicle LBC Parking Eye

Fluff15

Hi all - posting on behalf of a friend. They received a NTK from Parking Eye ANPR system, and for the purposes of this thread were the keeper of the vehicle which is owned by a company.

I pointed him to this forum, and he went through the process of appealing but the idiot timed himself out on POPLA and was rejected. The company has now received an LBC from PE, to which he must respond.

I have found this thread which is similar, the particular case involves a college and a school which share an access road, the college has the contract with PE, the school does not, and the signage is of course poor defining which parking belongs to which.

Just so I am clear, his next plan of action is:

SAR to PE
Write a letter to PE that says (as helpfully written by Coupon-Mad):

- he is not the owner, the company is,

- he is only the registered keeper and were not driving, and

- POFA was not properly followed to transfer liability to him as keeper, and

- nor was there any 'relevant contract' or 'relevant obligation' or any contravention

Does he need to include particulars of the case? Anything extra I might be missing for him?

Thank you

Coupon-mad

The company has now received an LBC from PE, to which he must respond.

The company need to name him as lessee/keeper then, to transfer liability, like here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6002267/letter-of-claim-bw-legal

He then gets a PCN in his own name (assuming he hasn't already) and can appeal.

Fluff15

Thank you, so, I have altered the letter to suit him as keeper for the purposes of this:

We confirm that {company name} is the vehicle's owner, but since it is a company fleet vehicle, we are not the 'keeper' for the purpose of the corresponding definition under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA").

This letter acts as our compliance with that Act. Given that we have duly provided you with the name and address of the keeper in past correspondence and above, we have transferred any liability for parking charges before court action began. This is as set out in statute and is not subject to any initial 'appeal' deadline of 28 days that Parking Eye Limited might have imagined exists.

Liability has de facto passed to the keeper and we have kept proof of posting this letter.

You must now take the matter up with the keeper. We can confirm that he is aware of this matter and we have passed the recent paperwork to him, although you will of course need to send him a PAP-compliant Letter of Claim if you intend to pursue the driver.

You must also erase our company data under the GDPR and DPA 2018 and are hereby barred by the POFA from pursuing {company name} at all.

If we are required to respond again, you are hereby fairly warned that this will no longer be a free service and from this date forward we will formally invoice Parking Eye Ltd for our time and trouble at £50 per letter, and will enforce such sum(s) that remain unpaid, with our cause of action being based upon your tacit agreement of this term by your conduct, if Parking Eye Ltd or its agents elect to write to {company name} about this matter again.

yours faithfully,

Fruitcake

Shouldn't this, "although you will of course need to send him a PAP-compliant Letter of Claim if you intend to pursue the driver" be amended to, "send him a PoFA compliant NTH"?
I don't see how they can go straight to a LBC/LOC if they haven't first sent a PCN/NTK to the hirer/lessee.

However, why would you help them by telling them what process they should follow? Surely the company should just say, you have already been given the name and address for service of the day to day keeper in our correspondence to you ref XXXXXX dated DD/MM/YY. This discharges our company's liability for any such alleged parking charge.

Coupon-mad

True, but the last paragraphs need to stay, to protect the company if the PPC still tries a claim against them, they could counterclaim.

I think the letter should say 'lessee/hirer' not keeper:

Liability has de facto passed to the named lessee/hirer, and we have kept proof of posting this letter.

The_Deep

IMO, PE signs leave much to be desired. I doubt that many judges would agree that they are capable of forming a contract, read this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5972164/parking-eye-signs-oxford-road-reading

and enlist the support of your MP as they are obviously trying to scam you.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, and persistent offenders denied access. Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers.

Until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

Fluff15

Hi all

Thank you for your advice before - my friend in the above post has now received a NTK to his own address, and the LBC has been cancelled at the company end. I am now drafting his response to this NTK, taking advice from the newbies thread. The NTK was received well after the 21 days in the letter he previously sent. We know that Parking Eye received it in good time, since they sent a letter saying they have not entered a contract with his company and therefore any charges related to letter writing will not be paid - the irony!

Anyway, just so I am clear, we are now sending Parking Eye the following:

Dear Parking Eye Ltd

RE: PCN No. xxxxxxxxx

I am writing my liability for a charge related to a parking infraction that you state took place on xxxx at the xxxx.

I wish to outline my current position in reference to your PCN.

Keepers Liability and POFA 2012
As stated in paragraph 13(2) of POFA 2012...

"The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given—

(a) A statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;

(b) A copy of the hire agreement; and

(c) A copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.

AND

Paragraph 14(2) and (3) of POFA 2012:

(2) The conditions are that —
(a) The creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper;
(b) A period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed; and
(c) The vehicle was not a stolen vehicle at the beginning of the period of parking to which the unpaid parking charges relate.
(3) In sub-paragraph (2)(a) “the relevant period” is the period of 21 days beginning with the day after that on which the documents required by paragraph 13(2) are given to the creditor.[/I]

- You were required to send this information to me (as Registered Keeper) within 21 days after receiving them from the lease/hire company (xxxx).
- It is clear you received the previous correspondence by this date due to your letter received on xxxx, which details how you are not liable for any invoice submitted by xxxxcompany as you have not entered into a contract with xxxcompany.
- Therefore I should have received these documents no later than xxxxx.
- As this has not happened, you cannot use POFA to assume keeper liability. There is more than one driver of the vehicle which you placed a PCN on.

In Summary...
- I wish to confirm to you I was NOT the driver of the vehicle.
- I am not obliged to disclose the identity of the driver and this does not affect my liability in this matter .
- As Parking Eye Ltd has not complied with paragraphs 13 (2) and 14 (2) of POFA 2012, you cannot rely on the provisions of the Act and hold me liable as keeper.
- You will need to pursue this claim with the driver once you identify them.

Given that Parking Eye Ltd has forfeited its right to keeper liability, please confirm that you shall now cancel this charge. Otherwise, please provide a POPLA code.

Coupon-mad

Looks good to me, as long as he waits till day 20 from the Notice to Hirer, so that they will be too late to rush out a compliant NTH with enclosures.

And no posting it snail mail of course. Online appeal, ticking 'lessee/hirer'.

Fluff15

Thank you! Information relayed and will update once I have more info.

Fluff15

Hi all, me again - Parking Eye have responded to our appeal on POPLA and it is time for the rebuttal. On the POPLA appeal we argued on the following grounds, with the help from previous winning posts:

1 – Notice to Keeper does not meet PoFA2012 requirements
2 – The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge
3 – The entrance signs are inadequately positioned and lit; signs in this carpark are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces, and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself
4 – No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

We received a 80 page evidence pack by PE, which in my opinion only went to help the case, and have attempted the rebuttal below. Please can you lovely lot have a look over it before it's sent off?

Notice to Hirer is non-PoFA compliant as p 14 (2)&(3) of POFA 2012. NtH must be received 21 days beginning with the day details are given to the creditor, also the operator has failed to provide evidence of the hire agreement, statement of liability or any signed statement from the hire company.
The writing on the signage is small & completely illegible from the photos provided by PE. BPA CoP A8.8 states there should be at least one sign containing the terms & conditions for parking that can be viewed without needing to leave the vehicle. There are a vast number of spaces in PE’s evidence which show that there are many spaces without view of a sign. POFA S4 & the BPA CoP require clear & legible text, the terms & conditions are hidden within small print as shown on PE’s evidence.

Not only this, PE’s evidence of sign type two is false, as seen from my evidence of images 6&7. The BPA CoP states in s20.5a when issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way and a date & time stamp should be included on the photograph, all photographs used for evidence should be clear & legible & must not be retouched/digitally altered. The date & time on their evidence of the signage in place allegedly on xx/xx/xx is not an official timestamp, merely text written on top of the photograph the same way as the ambient lighting text. There is no proof that this type of signage was in place at time of the alleged infraction. PE’s own evidence shows a number of spaces where there are no signs, & have not shown where the defined boundary is. ANPR images of a vehicle entering & exiting a car park does not determine the period parked. There is no evidence to actual parking times this fails the requirements of PoFA p 9(2)(a).

There is no landowner authority. PE has provided a witness statement in Sec:G of the evidence pack instead of the relevant contract. A witness statement to the existence of a contract is not sufficient, & have not proven vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, & basic information such as the land boundary & bays where enforcement applies/does not apply as shown in VCS v Ibbotson, Case 1SE09849 S!!!!horpe County Court, 16/05/12. PE have breached the BPA:CoP s7 & failed to demonstrate their legal standing, which renders this charge unenforceable.

1505grandad

POPLA rebuttal limited to 2000 characters - I make that over 2350.