No Return in 2 Hours

Barutd

Hi All


Apologies if this has been covered but I couldn't find anything that fit what I needed properly, please feel free to direct me and delete this post if needs be...


The driver of my vehicle visited an Iceland supermarket and then returned an hour and a half later because they had forgotten something from their original shop. They were completely unaware of this rule but are able to provide evidence that they visited the shop and made a purchase on both occasions. The staff in the shop, including the manager, have no idea who the landlord is however, so I have sent the evidence to their head office.


The car is also a lease car, so I believe they had to send me a NTK within 21 days. They were notified by the lease company on 20/06/2019 and I received the letter 23 days later on 13/07/2019. The date on their letter states that they sent it on 08/07/2019 however, so I'm not sure where I stand on this, can anyone help?


I've taken the following complaint from the newbie thread and changed it slightly to fit my case, does it look ok or do people suggest taking another course of action?


Thanks in advance




Dear ES Parking Enforcement LTD

RE: PCN No. xxxxxxxxx

I would like you to know I (as the registered keeper of the vehicle) am not ignoring your letter suggesting my liability for a charge related to a parking infraction that you state took place on 13/05/2019 at Seymour Grove Retail Park, Manchester.

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.
- Therefore I should have received these documents no later than 11/07/2019.
- 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 ES Parking Enforcement 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.

Further Questions
To begin our discussions, as this is purely a claim under a purported contract, and you have no statutory footing to issue penalties, I wish to make you aware of the following details and require the specific information so that I can assess the validity of your claim:

1. Who is the party that contracted with ES Parking Enforcement LTD for the provision of their services at the site of the alleged to have taken place in Manchester (Seymour Grove Retail Park)?
2. What is the full legal identity of the landowner?
3. As you are not the landowner, please provide a contemporaneous and unredacted copy of your contract with the landholder that demonstrate that ES Parking Enforcement LTD have the authority of the landowner to both issue parking charges and legislate in your own name or on behalf of the landowner .
4. Is your charge based on damages for breach of contract? - Yes or no?
5. If the charge is based on damages for breach of contract, please provide justification of this sum.
6. Is your charge based on a contractually agreed sum for the provision of parking? - Yes or no?
7. If the charge is based on a contractually agreed sum for the provision of parking please, provide a valid VAT invoice as you make no mention on VAT in any correspondence.
8. The signage to the site (from a seated position in the vehicle as it enters the car park is impossible to read and any specific rules regarding stopping on yellow lines being strictly prohibited at any time. Please provide a copy of the sign that purportedly forms the basis of the contract entered into by the driver for my records.

Next Steps
When I receive a full reply to all these questions i will be in a position to be able to furnish you with a full response.

Alternatively you can cancel your charge, or I will happily wait for my day in court to challenge this PCN as the registered keeper of the vehicle.

Note: I have contacted Iceland’s head office to strongly protest in writing the basis for this PCN, providing evidence of the legitimate use of this car park and ask that they take it up with their landlord.

Yours

Coupon-mad

You are not the registered keeper. Change that first line to 'hirer/lessee' and remove the bit in brackets lower down that repeats 'as the rk' AND at the end under 'next steps'!

The staff in the shop, including the manager, have no idea who the landlord is however, so I have sent the evidence to their head office.

Good. It is shocking that this isn't going to be cancelled by the Parking Firm but it won't be, unless the complaint to the retail CEO works.

I'd remove all of this which detracts from the main point, that as hirer/lessee you can't be held liable due to the lack of enclosures with the NTH (never mind the date!).

Further Questions
To begin our discussions, as this is purely a claim under a purported contract, and you have no statutory footing to issue penalties, I wish to make you aware of the following details and require the specific information so that I can assess the validity of your claim:

1. Who is the party that contracted with ES Parking Enforcement LTD for the provision of their services at the site of the alleged to have taken place in Manchester (Seymour Grove Retail Park)?
2. What is the full legal identity of the landowner?
3. As you are not the landowner, please provide a contemporaneous and unredacted copy of your contract with the landholder that demonstrate that ES Parking Enforcement LTD have the authority of the landowner to both issue parking charges and legislate in your own name or on behalf of the landowner .
4. Is your charge based on damages for breach of contract? - Yes or no?
5. If the charge is based on damages for breach of contract, please provide justification of this sum.
6. Is your charge based on a contractually agreed sum for the provision of parking? - Yes or no?
7. If the charge is based on a contractually agreed sum for the provision of parking please, provide a valid VAT invoice as you make no mention on VAT in any correspondence.
8. The signage to the site (from a seated position in the vehicle as it enters the car park is impossible to read and any specific rules regarding stopping on yellow lines being strictly prohibited at any time. Please provide a copy of the sign that purportedly forms the basis of the contract entered into by the driver for my records.

Only say this if it is true:

In Summary...
- I wish to confirm to you I was NOT the driver of the vehicle.

And you should state that a driver of this car visited an Iceland supermarket and then the car appears to have returned some hours later, and put them to strict proof that the driver was the same person on each visit, which are in fact separate contracts and the first driver's visit cannot be used against the second driver.

(yes I know...the point is, the burden is theirs to show these were different drivers).

Don't ask us about IAS stage when this is rejected, no 'what are my next steps?'!

The_Deep

The term seems to be to be an unfair term under in a consumer contract. The Consumer rights Act. I think that they would struggle in court. How do they know the same driver parked on each occasion?

This is obviously a scam and possibly a breach of The Human Rights Act, complain to your MP as nine times out of ten these tickets are unlawful.

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, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but 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.

fisherjim

Are you sure it was the same driver both times, more to the point are the PPC?

The_Deep

I have often wondered how adjudicators in Council tickets deal with this.

Barutd

Thanks for all your replies.


I will definitely write to my MP as well as Iceland.

I honestly can't remember who was driving at the time of either alleged 'offence', so I will remove the part about not driving at the time. I'll also remove the other parts, like I said I just copied it all from a successful appeal. Thanks for you help

Can I just ask what you mean by, "Don't ask us about IAS stage when this is rejected, no 'what are my next steps?'!"?

I've added something in about holding them to strict proof that it was even the same driver too. I never thought of this and I did once get one from a council when I was working because the next street was included in the same zone and I moved my car after 3 hours. I'd definitely challenge them to provide proof it was the same driver in future.


Here's what I've got now




Dear ES Parking Enforcement LTD

RE: PCN No. xxxxxxxxx

I would like you to know I (as the hirer/lessee of the vehicle) am not ignoring your letter suggesting my liability for a charge related to a parking infraction that you state took place on 13/05/2019 at Seymour Grove Retail Park, Manchester.

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 Hirer/Lessee) within 21 days after receiving them from the lease/hire company.
- Therefore I should have received these documents no later than 19/07/2019.
- 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 am not obliged to disclose the identity of the driver and this does not affect my liability in this matter .
- As ES Parking Enforcement 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.


Strict Proof of Contract With The Driver
A driver of this car visited an Iceland supermarket and then the car appears to have returned some hours later. There is more than one driver able to drive the car in question, so I put you to strict proof that the driver was the same person on each visit, which are in fact separate contracts and the first driver's visit cannot be used against the second driver.

Please Note: I have contacted Iceland’s head office to strongly protest in writing the basis for this PCN, providing evidence of the legitimate use of this car park and ask that they take it up with their landlord.

Yours

The_Deep

So, is it possible that there were two drivers? Is there more than one driver named on the hire agreement. If so, why not mention it?

Barutd

Barutd wrote: »

Strict Proof of Contract With The Driver
A driver of this car visited an Iceland supermarket and then the car appears to have returned some hours later. There is more than one driver able to drive the car in question, so I put you to strict proof that the driver was the same person on each visit, which are in fact separate contracts and the first driver's visit cannot be used against the second driver.

Yours

I have!

Coupon-mad

The heading doesn't match what it says. I'd change the heading.

Barutd

Hi All


As expected my appeal to ES Parking Enforcement was rejected. I have just re-read the newbie post however and I see that the keeper liability appeal is successful, even with IPC firms.


So I propose to submit the following appeal to IAS, what are your thoughts?



I wish to appeal PCN No. xxxxxxxxx from ES Parking Enforcement as registered keeper of the vehicle in question on the following grounds.

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 Hirer/Lessee) within 21 days after receiving them from the lease/hire company.
- Therefore I should have received these documents no later than 19/07/2019.
- As this has not happened, ES Parking Enforcement 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 am not obliged to disclose the identity of the driver and this does not affect my liability in this matter .
- As ES Parking Enforcement LTD has not complied with paragraphs 13 (2) and 14 (2) of POFA 2012, they cannot rely on the provisions of the Act and hold me liable as keeper.

Strict Proof The Same Driver Visited on Both Occasions
A driver of this car visited an Iceland supermarket and then the car appears to have returned some hours later. There is more than one driver able to drive the car in question and the alleged contract is entered into with the driver, not the vehicle. So I put ES Parking Enforcement to strict proof that the driver was the same person on each visit, which are in fact separate contracts meaning the first driver's visit cannot be used against the second driver.

MistyZ

Eh? But the appeal has been done and has been rejected .... what am I missing?

What happened with the landowner complaint?