Parkingeye PCN

Android07

Redx said:

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

Oh dammmmm .Should the RK now grovel for the £20 or arm with the letters in the stickie thread and prepare for war?

D_P_Dance

Please read this

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

Some PE cases have been dismissed recently as judges think they are too wordy, the print is too small, and many are eight feetabove the ground

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, when life gets back to normal, it will become impossible for those scammers who are left to continue their vile trade, 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.

MistyZ

Android07 said:

Redx said:

Oh dammmmm .Should the RK now grovel for the £20 or arm with the letters in the stickie thread and prepare for war?

Both grovel and fight.  Whatever it takes.  And also continue to press the 'swimming pool' hard for a cancellation.

I missed that the circumstances were disguised at first.  Was envisaging a whole untold story of swimming pools, carp infestations, taxi drivers on covert missions.  

Redx

Android07 said:

Redx said:

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

Oh dammmmm .Should the RK now grovel for the £20 or arm with the letters in the stickie thread and prepare for war?

Their choice , because they may not want the hassle of a court case when they were not driving , but if PE followed POFA and complied then the RK can be liable

Passing the buck to the driver puts the fight onto the driver

My point is that before going to war you check how much ammunition you have in stock , if it can work , compare your arms to theirs , get intelligence on the opposition , because war may be futile and costly , choose your battles and battleground carefully , look at previous battles to avoid the outcome in those if the opposition won

Any win will be based on the following

Compliance with POFA 2012
A valid landowner authority or contract
Signage
The CRA 2015
Compliance with the BPA 2020 CoP

The £20 offer is in the new CoP , one fifth of the default daily tariff on most sites

In order to win , your side must find a failure by the claimant in one of the above , possibly signage being the strongest argument as deepy says above

If not , then sue for peace before it gets out of hand

My personal viewpoint is the driver should have paid the keeper £20 and the keeper should have paid it , the offer was extended so PE did offer an olive branch more than once in this saga , so my answer is try again because a loss in court will cost one of you around £180

Le_Kirk

Android07 said:

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.

Then, presumably, you did not receive the PCN and LBC.  Is that correct?  If so it is not your issue to deal with.

Android07

Le_Kirk said:

Android07 said:

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.

Then, presumably, you did not receive the PCN and LBC.  Is that correct?  If so it is not your issue to deal with.

The RK is part of my immediate family. So, yes, in a way The Driver has to deal with it together with the RK.

Coupon-mad

So you are helping the rk because you are more internet-savvy and they wouldn't be able to follow forum posts? That's fine.  We just like to establish who is who, because if P/Eye sue then it'll be the rk, unless the rk now transfers liability by giving the driver's name and postal address by email to P/Eye's enforcement team, before the court claim arrives. 

Think about that as an option if you are the driver and you are the most robust/confident of the two.

Android07

Coupon-mad said:

So you are helping the rk because you are more internet-savvy and they wouldn't be able to follow forum posts? That's fine.  We just like to establish who is who, because if P/Eye sue then it'll be the rk, unless the rk now transfers liability by giving the driver's name and postal address by email to P/Eye's enforcement team, before the court claim arrives. 

Think about that as an option if you are the driver and you are the most robust/confident of the two.

Thank you. The RK will contact PE by email mentioned in the Sticky thread and disclose the driver. This may hopefully reset the clock and the original lower offer is once again offered.

Coupon-mad

The driver could then appeal (when they get their PCN) and say they've just spoken to the keeper and have been told that he/she was offered to settle at £20.  You would like to be offered the same in their reply, to provide you with a level playing field so you can make an informed decision before trying POPLA.

Android07

I will keep you guys posted.