Confused... LBCCC ParkingEye

Dave747

Hi
Please fogive me if I have missed something but I have read the NEWBIE thread about 30 times especially the stuff from Coupon-Mad and there are still things I just don't understand.


I am currently at the LBCCC stage with parking eye.
I was not the driver at the time.


Coupon-Mad says
"The exception is PARKINGEYE
If you get a LBCCC from ParkingEye, do send a SAR using the form on their PRIVACY page if you feel you are missing evidence (such as the VRN list from any PDT machine) but also email their litigation team if there is anything you wish to say that could stop the claim:


I have drafted up the letter (SAR) to send to Parking Eye on their Privacy page.
I have no idea what email to send to their litigation team as I have no idea what could stop the claim.
I have no idea who the land owner is but presume I would get this info from the SAR?


Coupon-mad goes on to say
"Do that email as well as the SAR, treat it as a last gasp chance to appeal, because ParkingEye can and will sometimes stop the case and revert to appeal stage, or they will accept you naming the driver & postal address (and will reissue the PCN and start again with the driver being allowed to appeal)."


What I don't understand and this may reflect the views of others also, is the following:


I have no idea what email to send to the litigation team so do I just send the SAR.
If not do I send the SAR and also appeal on their website stating I wasn't the driver.
Is my only option to name the driver, as several other threads advise against naming the driver, in fact one thread goes mad with the poster for naming the driver saying they should not have done that and that the RK has more clout with regards to appeals.
If I don't name the driver do I still appeal on their website and send the:
TEMPLATE ''ONE SIZE FITS ALL'' FIRST APPEAL THAT DOESN'T SAY WHO WAS DRIVING

Or is it too late to send this first appeal as it has got to the LBCCC stage and beyond the original appeals (POPLA etc) stage. By the way the first two letters were ignored (1) The reduced fee letter 60 pounds and 2nd letter (2) Keeper Liability 100 pounds.


I just seem to be going around in circles reading the threads I have been reading them since 12pm today and its now 10pm.


The info is great by the way I just need some structure.
Many thanks in advance.

Redx

the SAR is to get the data held on YOU and your vehicle as the data subject , it is sent to their DPO , usually by email , with proof of I D such as a copy of the V5C (LOG BOOK)

they wont release any other data , especially not somebody elses data as that would be a breach of the GDPR

so a SAR will not get you the landowner details

to get those you can google the site to see if the info has come up in previous cases , or is advertised online due to retail units or similar being available to rent , plus you can ask the local council who pays the non domestic rates on the site , or as a last resort you can ask the Land Registry who owns the site , they will charge tou a small fee of about £3 to find out who the landowner is

the appeal stage to Parking Eye should have been done with letters 1 and 2 , using the blue text template and appealing as keeper , but much too late now (those letters should NOT have been ignored)

the popla appeal stage was if PE rejected your appeal , as a second stage , again much too late now because the letters were ignored

if Parking Eye complied with POFA then hiding behind keeper liability is irrelevant , they can take a keeper to court and cite POFA as to why they are allowed to do so

POFA protects a keeper if they have failed it , not where they complied with it , so not being a driver is irrelevant

if they complied with POFA, then you could name the driver to try to avoid court , no good if the keeper and driver are one and the same person however, but good for a keeper if they dont want to go to court

emailing the litigation team is only any good if there is a valid reason for avoiding the charge

Dave747

Hi Redx and thank you very much for your speedy response and clearing things up for me.
The keeper and the driver are not the same but husband and wife one is the RK and the other was the driver.
Keeper doesn't want to go to court!
I assume the only option is to name the driver then?
If so can I just name the driver using the appeals section on the Parking Eye website?
I assume everything will start all over again only this time for the driver.

As they now have the drivers details I also assume there would be less chance of winning any appeal for an overstay in a paid carpark unless there are of course any technical errors etc.


Thanks again for your response, much appreciated.

Redx

check if the NTK adhered to POFA in timescales and wording (it probably did)

for a postal NTK, it should have arrived by day 15 where the incident date is day zero

if it is POFA compliant , then at the moment the keeper is liable

if the keeper doesnt want a court case , they should email the litigation team with the driver details and absolve themselves under POFA (before a court case happens , too late once a court claim has been taken out in the keepers name)

so to avoid going to court , you name the driver, before any court claim !!

I do not believe you can use the appeals section for this , no , hence emailing the litigation team if naming the driver

BARRY BEAVIS lost 3 times in 3 different courts for his overstay on a free car park, a few years ago, so they can use this against you or against the driver , especially if the alleged overstay was more than say 20 minutes (read the BPA CoP)

they will just say BEAVIS , YOUR HONOUR and get a slam dunk win

pick your battles carefully, because a judge might take the fact of you ignoring the first 2 letters , not appealing and not going to popla , badly, because you are wasting the courts time when popla could have been used, capiche ??

google BEAVIS, his last loss was the Supreme Court


in order to win this , you or the driver would have to win on a technicality , so yes , correct

1) how long was the alleged overstay ? ,

2) why was the initial £60 pcn not paid ?

3) what is the reason for avoiding payment of a pcn when the parking rules were broken due to an overstay ?)

4) name the site where it happened

Ralph-y

see if this helps ...




what is the court like ...
Have a look at this short video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n93eoaxhzpU

Ralph:cool:

Dave747

Thanks again Redx for your speedy response and clear answers.


The overstay took place on the 22nd Nov 19
The first letter (Parking Charge Notice) arrived to the keeper on 26th Nov 19 (4 days later)
The second letter (Parking Charge Notice Reminder) arrived on 5th Dec 19 (13 days after overstay)
A 3rd Letter arrived quoting Schedule 4 of POFA stating keeper liability now satisfied as 29 days have passed from date notice of the Parking Charge was given. This was dated 30th Dec 19 (34 days after the first notice issued on 26th Nov 19.


The reason why they were ignored is because I had read in so many places on the internet to do this, lesson learnt I suppose!


The overstay was 38mins and I know this sounds a lot but there was a genuine reason.

The driver of the vehicle had gone to look at a job, repair a leak in some plumbing work in a major student accommation block. Driver assumed from earlier reports that it was a simple repair taking no longer than 30mins to sort out. 1hr was paid for at the ticket machine thinking that would be enough as accommodation block was very close to car park.

It turned out that the leak had gotten much worse in the 15 mins before the driver arrived so on entering the building it became a much worse scenario than though and turned out to be a small emergency to prevent the whole accommodation block from flooding and destroying several rooms.
To cut a long story short driver couldn't leave until the problem was solved which took approx 1.30mins.
The last thing on the drivers mind was to nip back to the car to put more money in the machine when they had a small emergency on their hands. This is the truth and only mitigating circumstance the driver has. Whether it would be accepted as reasonable I don't know, I very much doubt it as these parking thieves really don't seem to care.



I am not sure if it is a technicality or not but the 38mins overstay has been worked out using an ANPR camera of the time the car entered the car park and the time the car left. There are several minutes difference between the car entering the car park and the time on the ticket.


The car park as only ever been used once by the driver, so not familiar with it at all. Don't have any pictures of the signs and Google maps shows outdated signs for this car park.

How would one go about obtaining images of the current signage without actually visiting the site again - which wouldn't be cost effective as it is in another city miles away?
Maybe the signage could throw up a technicality for the driver to appeal against.
What's the chances of there being errors in the wording of the 4 correspondence received from them and could this be used in an appeal?


I have read the Beavis report many times, all 3 of them, on parking prankster but do not see how it relates to a car park where one pays from the get go. The Beavis case is for a car park that offered free parking for 2 hrs.


It's just so annoying when the driver had initially gone to do a good deed for the accommodation block owners, overstays by half an hour and gets slapped with what I consider to be a very unfair over the top charge 77x higher than the ticket price. It's just not right!


If the driver is named will they be able to go through the appeals process again from the beginning? Therefore any Judge would not have to know about the ignored letters from the keeper?


Thanks again for all your support.

waamo

A judge won't care if an appeal was lodged or not. If you did name the driver they could appeal though. The question is does the driver have grounds to appeal?

If not you could try negotiating with Parking Eye. Sometimes they will settle for less and sometimes they won't. If you don't try you won't know though.

Redx

I agree that it's not the same as Beavis , it was a paid for car park , but it's bilking because no attempt was made to pay the remaining time of say an extra hour at the earliest opportunity so the driver defrauded Parking Eye , it's like drinking a pint of beer having paid a deposit of half a pint and failing to settle up the remaining balance

They should have bought another one hour ticket on returning to the car park , then phoned up parking eye to explain both tickets are for the one period

Or phoned parking eye as soon as they could and offered to pay the outstanding balance , but decided to do nothing and then all subsequent letters were ignored , legitimate letters

The previous BPA CoP tells you both what grace periods are acceptable and I did mention a maximum of twenty minutes

In simple terms , the driver defrauded and therefore short changed parking eye (bilking) , so the chances of winning are slim to non existent and nothing you have said tells me that either of you has a winning case

You should be doing what the LBCCC stage is implying , plus what Waamo said , negotiating an out of court settlement before they issue an MCOL , because its not in either parties interest to go to court

This forum has not advised ignoring a PCN since march 2013 (just after pofa) , almost 7 years ago now, so around the time I started coming here

Negotiate a settlement and learn from this saga , because you will lose in Court and that will be up to £200

The_Deep

In simple terms , the driver defrauded and therefore short changed parking eye (bilking) , so the chances of winning are slim to non existent


I am not convinced that you would lose a court case, many judges have problems with PE signs, read this

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

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP, it can cause the scammer extra costs and work, and has been known to get the charge cancelled.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, 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.

[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]

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

Dave747

Thanks very much Waamo, Redx and The deep for your replies.
Will follow everyones advice, cheers.