Parkingeye PCN

Android07

Hi
I have visited the site since before Martin sold it and moved on but never registered or posted in the forums.
I apologize if I am asking for help in my first post. I also confirm that I have read the related stickie threads which were exhaustive and overwhelming.

Let me begin by giving a timeline of events :
( wrong information given on purpose! )
*Drove to pick up a fish from a swimming pool. THE DRIVER saw at the entrance to the car park of the pool the parking charges. THE DRIVERdid not park in any designated parking space. THE DRIVER parked near the main entrance where taxis pick up / drop off other fish. The fish took some time to come and THE DRIVER was there for 30 mins. THE DRIVER was with his car at all times.
*The RK then received a letter in the post. An appeal was sent promptly informing of what had happened. The driver was not disclosed.
*PCN was put on hold for 28 days.
*Same appeal was again made and the PCN was again put on hold for 28 days
*Another letter followed and the PCN was reduced to £20.
*RK informed Parking Eye that as a gesture of goodwill,  will pay £x ( where x is Charge for parking in a designated space for 1 hour divided by half ) Appeal was deemed unsuccessful and the £20 period was extended.
*Now, the RK has recieved a LBC in the post  a week ago where they want £100.

The RK has now emailed the swimming pool authority. The evidence on PE website shows photos when THE DRIVER entered and left. I understand that the RK should now disclose me as the driver so that the clock can be reset. Will THE DRIVER win an argument about what I said where THEY parked ?

KeithP

Despite trying to anonymise your post, you have inadvertently given away the driver's identity.

It was the driver that drove the car. It was the keeper that received the letter in the post.

Android07

KeithP said:

Despite trying to anonymise your post, you have inadvertently given away the driver's identity.

It was the driver that drove the car. It was the keeper that received the letter in the post.

I just updated my post in full. The RK is the main driver, I am the additional.

Redx

then you are not the person who received the NTK or the LBC either !!! there is no I

see the newbies faq sticky thread for how to deal with any private pcn, top of this forum , tell the RK to read it

yes they can name the driver, but that doesnt mean the driver can win this on the information provided , you need to find a legal loophole and PE have probably closed them all, so which legal loophole are you expecting to exploit ?

KeithP

@Android07, despite having re-written your opening post, you need to urgently re-read my earlier post.

Android07

KeithP said:

@Android07, despite having re-written your opening post, you need to urgently re-read my earlier post.

I see now. Apologies, that was a typo on my part. I can wholly confirm that I am not the RK.

Redx

Android07 said:

Hi

The RK has now emailed the swimming pool authority. The evidence on PE website shows photos when THE DRIVER entered and left. I understand that the RK should now disclose me as the driver so that the clock can be reset. Will THE DRIVER win an argument about what I said where THEY parked ?

CORRECTED THAT FOR YOU

Parking Eye monitor time on site , not parking , no payment was made if its a p & d car park ?

Android07

Redx said:

then you are not the person who received the NTK or the LBC either !!! there is no I

see the newbies faq sticky thread for how to deal with any private pcn, top of this forum , tell the RK to read it

yes they can name the driver, but that doesnt mean the driver can win this on the information provided , you need to find a legal loophole and PE have probably closed them all, so which legal loophole are you expecting to exploit ?

Parking not in a designated parking space has not left the swimming pool owner out of pocket. Could demand to show proof that actually parked in one.

Redx

as mentioned earlier, the not a genuine pre estimate of loss will fail due to a Supreme Court ruling which Parking Eye won !!

you could demand to see evidence of the drivers parking place and how long they were there for

the real question is what do the signs say the driver should have done ?

therefore, what part of the contract did they fail to comply with ?

what do taxi drivers do to exempt their vehicles ?

contract law is based on the signage , nobody here has seen those signs , so we have no idea what contract the driver entered into by staying on site

Android07

Here is an image from the net.

Redx

ok , so its a pay and display car park and no £2 payment was made so the default daily tariff applies of say £100 , it also states to park only in marked bays, doesnt say anything about taxi drivers and what they should do nor where they should park

its also states that members must register their VRM on a terminal inside the building , so presumably a taxi driver would do so to exempt their vehicle due to the ANPR cameras photographing it on entry and exit ?

neither was done , hence the NTK , so it appears the driver broke the parking contract they entered into whilst on site (no payment , didnt park in a marked bay , didnt register for exemption on the machine inside the pool reception) and they definitely exceeded any BPA CoP grace periods too

the question is , is it a penalty they are issuing due to forbidding signage, or a parking charge notice for non payment of the parking fee by the driver , not parking in a marked bay and also not entering their VRM on the IPAD inside the building ?

it certainly will not win IMHO on the proportional; loss to any landowner argument, that hasnt been a feature for about 5 years on anything I have seen on here in the last 5 years , not with PE , not with POPLA , not with the court cases either

so I can understand why a keeper will nominate the driver , to remove themselves from the legal liability under POFA, but a driver still needs to have a good reason to win on a legal technicality, which may be difficult here

the £20 offer seemed like a good option to me, a shame it wasnt taken