Parking Eye LBCCC will we go to Court?

nosferatu1001

Respond back, and state tha the beginning of proceedings, which is common knowledge and you are surprised to have to tell someone workingfor the BPA this, is when a claim form is issued
A letter before claim is by definition not the start of proceedings
So, again, please explain why PE are permitted to harass a keeper who has complied fully with POFA2012 and discharged completely and fully any possible liability for the parking charge. 
Your response will be part of the complaint to the DVLA that the BPA are permitting a member to harass a keeper for no lawful reason, and asking the DVLA to investigate such a flagrant breach of POFA2012 and the DPA2018. and the failure of the BPA to act properly.

millie67_2

nosferatu1001 said:

Respond back, and state tha the beginning of proceedings, which is common knowledge and you are surprised to have to tell someone workingfor the BPA this, is when a claim form is issued
A letter before claim is by definition not the start of proceedings
So, again, please explain why PE are permitted to harass a keeper who has complied fully with POFA2012 and discharged completely and fully any possible liability for the parking charge. 
Your response will be part of the complaint to the DVLA that the BPA are permitting a member to harass a keeper for no lawful reason, and asking the DVLA to investigate such a flagrant breach of POFA2012 and the DPA2018. and the failure of the BPA to act properly.

Thank you!  Response sent

millie67_2

Hi all, frustratingly...I have received the following from Steve Clark...  I think I will just have to accept that PE are going to issue a Claim in my name shortly?!...Any advice would be gratefully received Thank you.

I have been able to look into your case and will begin by explaining my remit which is to determine whether Parking Eye have breached our Code of Practice or not - my powers do not extend to being able to cancel a PCN.

 

The overriding principle of the POFA legislation can be found in Clause 9 (f) which says - I have highlighted the key point;

 

(f) warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given:

(i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and

(ii) the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;

 

In this instance, as I understand it, you were given every chance to transfer liability to the driver but for your own reasons chose not to. You appealed to both Parking Eye and POPLA,  putting forward your version of events in the form of a statement from the driver - this is of course your right but having been unsuccessful with both of your appeals, I don’t believe that Parking Eye are in breach of our Code by not allowing you to transfer liability now.

 

I will move onto your interpretation of Clause 5 of POFA which is an interesting one but one with which I do not agree. To my mind it says that the operator does not lose the right to enforce against the keeper in the event that they name the driver after legal proceedings have been issued. What is unclear is whether a motorist can seek to transfer liability prior to legal proceedings being issued, but after the 28 days - I can see how this might apply if the keeper had not engaged previously but I am unable to agree that it applies where a keeper has consistently declined to name the driver, as is the case here. I don’t expect us to agree on this point but my position is both sincerely and resolutely held.

 

In determining whether Parking Eye are in breach of our Code, Clause 5 must be read in conjunction with Clause 4 (2) (a) of POFA which says;

 

(2) The right under this paragraph applies only if:

(a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met;

 

It therefore follows, I have to determine whether they have met the conditions of this Clause and the other Clauses referenced therein. I believe that they have and subsequently conclude that Parking Eye have neither breached the Code or POFA.

 

I am sure that this is not the answer you were hoping for but I have met the obligations of considering the matter again and in sharing my conclusions with you, consequently I believe that I can close the file on this case.

nosferatu1001

This is completely wrong. 
Steve knows this. 

Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4

5(1)The first condition is that the creditor—

(a)has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the requirement to pay the unpaid parking charges; but

(b)is unable to take steps to enforce that requirement against the driver because the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver.

Reply back

State that PE know the name and address

Therefore they do not meet the first condition

Therefore they may not claim from the keeper. 

THis is settled, Steve Clark, and you knwo this. 
Your role in misleading a consumer is being noted. 

nosferatu1001

To further add:

The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

4(2)The right under this paragraph applies only if—

(a)the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met; and

millie67_2

nosferatu1001 said:

To further add:

The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

4(2)The right under this paragraph applies only if—

(a)the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met; and

Thank you for both of your messages.  I have responded to Steve with the facts, again!!  I will yet again await a response... getting just a little frustrated with all this now! 

Coupon-mad

Chortle...the BPA are not lawyers...nor am I, but as an observation - they would say that, wouldn't they...

Luckily, your Judge will be legally trained and will be able to read the law as we do.

millie67_2

Hi all, just thought I would post a quick update...not that there is anything to report!  I have not received a response from Steve to my last email!  I have also received no more letters from PE since theirs dated 17th June which 'kind of' acknowledged the letter I had sent them giving the driver's information but didn't actually acknowledge that was the content of my letter (just said "we confirm that we have received your recent correspondence but maintain our position that the full £100 remains payable" and gave me 14 days to pay)  I did also email the enforcement team after that to say I was disappointed to note that PE had not even acknowledged the fact that I had named the driver.  Their last email to me was dated 8th July and just reiterated the fact that their position will not change and I should pay £100 within 14 days or legal action "will be taken".

So, nothing further to report, no contact since 8th July ... Anyone know how long it could be before I might receive some court papers and any opinions as to whether this will definitely happen or is there a slim chance they might drop the action against me bearing in mind that they know I named the driver before action commenced??  I should be enjoying the summer holidays but unfortunately this whole nightmare is taking over my thoughts at the moment 

Umkomaas

Log into the PE website to check the current status of the PCN - there may be a possibility that they've cancelled it. If it's still current, be ready for whatever next comes your way from them. 

Redx

Parking Eye have 6 years to issue a court claim via the CCBC in Northampton , so don't hold your breath