POPLA - ParkingEye Lee Valley Velodrome

padairg

Hello All,
Firstly, thanks to you all who have helped me unknowingly so far.

Secondly, I have an escalating situation with ParkingEye and Popla. I’ll try to keep this brief.
I had appealed solely on the basis of them failing to post the correct docs to me under POFA. (It's a company leased car). I have not disclosed the driver identity.

I have 7 days to respond to PE's "evidence" to POPLA. Amongst a load of waffle about how good their ANPR is and how clear their signs are (none of which I am disputing), is one line that states “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.”

This has completely thrown me, not least that they mention POFA twice on the back of the PCN (we don’t have one of the Golden Tickets it seems!). Am I right in thinking that if they don’t think that POFA is relevant, then they are assuming I am the driver? It is not possible to identify the driver from the photos PE have provided

I was thinking of responding to PE's evidence with:
"In their defence, ParkingEye have stated “this Parking Charge was not issued under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.”, despite claiming so on the original PCN. They are not transferring liability from the unknown driver to the registered keeper, so they are holding the driver responsible. From their evidence, it is not possible to identify the driver, therefore **** Ltd cannot be held liable for the charge."

It feels like they tried to transfer liability the the keeper under POFA initially, then they know I had them beaten on failing to send the docs, so they are now saying it was never issued under POFA anyway. Are they just throwing mud and seeing what sticks?

Any help much appreciated. Cheers

The_Deep

Amongst a load of waffle about how good their ANPR is and how clear their signs are (none of which I am disputing),

Why not?

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]

MistyZ

Check the wording on the NTKs against the relevant section of POFA, there's a link in the Newbies' thread.

If it is compliant then with 2000 characters to comment on their evidence you should be able to quote from the NTK to refute their assertion.

Are you in England or Wales?
Edit: Doh! Sorry - 'Lee Valley'.

padairg

If it is compliant then with 2000 characters to comment on their evidence you should be able to quote from the NTK to refute their assertion.

OK thanks. I have studied PE's evidence in more detail now. I can see that they have sent 5 PCNs in total to various addresses (Original then chaser to Mercedes Finance, Original then chaser to Company, then finally one to my Personal address). The originals to MB and the company both mention POFA... "You are warned that if, after 29 days of the warning given..." but the chasers do not, rather talk about Beavis case law. .
Then the final PCN that has come to my home has no mention of POFA and appears to be a "Golden Ticket".
Question is, which one applies? Is it that most recent Golden tIcket one?
In which case their assertion that it has not been issued under POFA is correct, but I won't disclose driver identity, so it should get thrown out?

nosferatu1001

Yes, exactly that!

You need to point out to POPLA that, as PE have ADMITTED they have no cause of action against a vehicle HIRER such as yourself, the appela MUST be upheld.

Coupon-mad

You need to spell out that:

1. P/eye have admitted to POPLA: “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.”

and

2. Even if POPLA are minded to consider that one or more of the original 4 PCNs sent in total to various addresses (original then chaser to Mercedes Finance, then another original then chaser to Company) were POFA compliant, this makes no difference. This is because, in a Hirer/lessee case where the driver was never identified, only the final 'Notice to Hirer' (PCN 5) matters and was seen by the hirer, and there had to be enclosures with it (there were none).

Thus it is clear that the operator has failed to comply with para 13/14 of the POFA about Notice to Hirers and mandatory enclosures, and they haven't even tried in this case, to kid POPLA that the hire agreement was enclosed (because it wasn't), and have admitted to a speculative and hopeless non-POFA case. POPLA must uphold the appeal and conclude that the NTH was not properly given.

padairg

Winner winner. Just heard back from Popla (took 3 weeks). Thanks very much for your help everyone.

The operator’s case is that the motorist did not purchase the appropriate parking time or remained in the car park for longer than permitted.

The appellant’s case is that the operator has not complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012). He states that the vehicle was parked outside of business hours at a leisure park, and therefore was not being used for business purposes.

From the evidence the operator has provided, I can see that the operator is pursuing the appellant as the hirer of the vehicle. Accordingly, the provisions laid out in PoFA 2012 will need to be followed in order to transfer liability from the keeper of the vehicle to the hirer of the vehicle. PoFA 2012, paragraph 4 (1) states “the creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle”. Section 13 (2) proceeds to state: “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.” Upon review of the evidence provided by the operator, it is evident that a notice to keeper was issued to a hire company, followed by a notice to hirer. Section 14(2)(a) requires the documents referred to above to be sent together with the notice to hirer. As such, I would expect the operator to demonstrate that it has provided the relevant documents to the hirer. The operator has not demonstrated that these documents were sent to the appellant as the hirer of the vehicle. As the operator has not demonstrated that it has complied with Section 13 and Section 14 of PoFA 2012, I cannot conclude that the Parking Charge Notice was issued correctly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

adam5816

Always good to see PPC wasting time and losing money, congrats on the win:beer: