PCN - ParkingEye - 14 Minute Stop (Didn't leave car!)

Ditzy_Mitzy

hardleyouth said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

The trouble is that the car's keeper isn't Getaround, it's Fred Bloggs who contracted through Getaround to lend his car to the OP.  The PCN pack would have been sent to Fred Bloggs who, presumably, either paid it and reclaimed the money from Getaround or forwarded it to Getaround, more likely, for processing.  

Thanks for all your inputs.  Just to quickly clarify that you are mostly correct.  The PCN was received by the registered keeper who then immediately paid it herself and then puts a claim in to GetAround who then immediately debit my credit card for £95.

It turns out that the £95 is composed of: £60 PCN charge, £5 GetAround processing fee, and £30 compensation (!?) for the registered keeper/hirer!  She must have been jumping up and down, £30 for putting her card details in.  That's half the value of the rental itself.

Your dispute now is purely with Getaround and its terms and conditions.  £68.30 would have got you a 48 hour hire of a new economy class car from Enterprise, just as a matter of interest.  Sometimes the traditional ways of doing things really are better.

nosferatu1001

Check exactly what you allowed GetARound to do, and what you didnt
ITs two pages and you havent provided those yet. Theyre all that matter now. 

Redx

I agree that the current dispute is with getaround and the hire company , but the hirer has had their right to dispute the case violated

There have been previous cases where Parking Eye and others have issued refunds if an appeal is successful , anyone can search the forum and find those hire and lease vehicle cases

I never said it was straightforward or black and white , but everything I mentioned is possible

RK to has the right to pay the ntk , but may not have the legal right to charge the hirer , depends on the documents and wordings and contract law , which is complicated

Yes it's a complicated mess , but not seeing how it can be resolved doesn't mean it cannot be resolved , it's been done previously , but nobody is saying that it is simple or easy

Stopping in a suitable place on a public road is what the driver should have done , they had no legal right to park on a hotel car park , or car showroom , or hospital car park , or my driveway for that matter ! That is what the driver needs to learn from this , plus that paperwork matters when things go Pete tong

Without seeing the paperwork , plus without seeing any appeal route , it will stay as is

If the ntk was paid by the registered keeper , then no PCN is in play , therefore no appeal and no popla either , either it's been paid , or not been paid , the OP says the RK paid it but the OP is also saying they tried a hirer appeal to parking eye , clearly it cannot be both scenarios

Ditzy_Mitzy

Redx said:

I agree that the current dispute is with getaround and the hire company , but the hirer has had their right to dispute the case violated

There have been previous cases where Parking Eye and others have issued refunds if an appeal is successful , anyone can search the forum and find those hire and lease vehicle cases

I never said it was straightforward or black and white , but everything I mentioned is possible

An to has the right to pay the ntk , but may not have the legal right to charge the hirer , depends on the documents and wordings

Yes it's a complicated mess , but not seeing how it can be resolved doesn't mean it cannot be resolved , it's been done previously , but nobody is saying that it is simple or easy

Stopping in a suitable place on a public road is what the driver should have done , they had no legal right to park on a hotel car park , or car showroom , or hospital car park , or my driveway for that matter ! That is what the driver needs to learn from this , plus that paperwork matters when things go Pete tong

Without seeing the paperwork , plus without seeing any appeal route , it will stay as is

If the ntk was paid by the registered keeper , then no PCN is in play , therefore no appeal and no popla either , either it's been paid , or not , the OP says the do paid it but is also saying they tried a hirer appeal to parking eye , clearly it cannot be both

It's been paid - the OP confirmed that earlier.  The registered keeper paid it on receipt of the PCN and handed the matter over to Getaround.  What's happened is:
1) PCN issued to keeper
2) PCN paid by keeper
3) Keeper reimbursed by Getaround
4) Money taken from OP by Getaround to cover cost of reimbursing and compensating the keeper 

Umkomaas

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

Redx said:

I agree that the current dispute is with getaround and the hire company , but the hirer has had their right to dispute the case violated

There have been previous cases where Parking Eye and others have issued refunds if an appeal is successful , anyone can search the forum and find those hire and lease vehicle cases

I never said it was straightforward or black and white , but everything I mentioned is possible

An to has the right to pay the ntk , but may not have the legal right to charge the hirer , depends on the documents and wordings

Yes it's a complicated mess , but not seeing how it can be resolved doesn't mean it cannot be resolved , it's been done previously , but nobody is saying that it is simple or easy

Stopping in a suitable place on a public road is what the driver should have done , they had no legal right to park on a hotel car park , or car showroom , or hospital car park , or my driveway for that matter ! That is what the driver needs to learn from this , plus that paperwork matters when things go Pete tong

Without seeing the paperwork , plus without seeing any appeal route , it will stay as is

If the ntk was paid by the registered keeper , then no PCN is in play , therefore no appeal and no popla either , either it's been paid , or not , the OP says the do paid it but is also saying they tried a hirer appeal to parking eye , clearly it cannot be both

It's been paid - the OP confirmed that earlier.  The registered keeper paid it on receipt of the PCN and handed the matter over to Getaround.  What's happened is:
1) PCN issued to keeper
2) PCN paid by keeper
3) Keeper reimbursed by Getaround
4) Money taken from OP by Getaround to cover cost of reimbursing and compensating the keeper 

The OP needs to check that the procedure above is clearly shown in the contract signed with GA. That would be a good starting point. 

Redx

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

Redx said:

I agree that the current dispute is with getaround and the hire company , but the hirer has had their right to dispute the case violated

There have been previous cases where Parking Eye and others have issued refunds if an appeal is successful , anyone can search the forum and find those hire and lease vehicle cases

I never said it was straightforward or black and white , but everything I mentioned is possible

An to has the right to pay the ntk , but may not have the legal right to charge the hirer , depends on the documents and wordings

Yes it's a complicated mess , but not seeing how it can be resolved doesn't mean it cannot be resolved , it's been done previously , but nobody is saying that it is simple or easy

Stopping in a suitable place on a public road is what the driver should have done , they had no legal right to park on a hotel car park , or car showroom , or hospital car park , or my driveway for that matter ! That is what the driver needs to learn from this , plus that paperwork matters when things go Pete tong

Without seeing the paperwork , plus without seeing any appeal route , it will stay as is

If the ntk was paid by the registered keeper , then no PCN is in play , therefore no appeal and no popla either , either it's been paid , or not , the OP says the do paid it but is also saying they tried a hirer appeal to parking eye , clearly it cannot be both

It's been paid - the OP confirmed that earlier.  The registered keeper paid it on receipt of the PCN and handed the matter over to Getaround.  What's happened is:
1) PCN issued to keeper
2) PCN paid by keeper
3) Keeper reimbursed by Getaround
4) Money taken from OP by Getaround to cover cost of reimbursing and compensating the keeper 

So why is the OP talking about appealing in their initial post and in their second post too ?

If it's been paid , there is no current nth PCN , nothing to appeal ?

Ditzy_Mitzy

Redx said:

So why is the OP talking about appealing in their initial post and in their second post too ?

If it's been paid , there is no current nth PCN , nothing to appeal ?

He isn't - he's asking if there's any way of retrospectively appealing a PCN which has already been paid.  The first post says that the ticket was paid by someone we now know to be the registered keeper of the car.

hardleyouth

If the ntk was paid by the registered keeper , then no PCN is in play , therefore no appeal and no popla either , either it's been paid , or not , the OP says the do paid it but is also saying they tried a hirer appeal to parking eye , clearly it cannot be both

It's been paid - the OP confirmed that earlier.  The registered keeper paid it on receipt of the PCN and handed the matter over to Getaround.  What's happened is:
1) PCN issued to keeper
2) PCN paid by keeper
3) Keeper reimbursed by Getaround
4) Money taken from OP by Getaround to cover cost of reimbursing and compensating the keeper 

Mitzy's timeline is correct. 

Redx - Despite the PCN having been paid, the ParkingEye online portal still allows me to lodge an appeal despite the outstanding balance showing as £0. 

I think you are probably correct that the PCN appeal route is null and void, as I can't really see any valid defence aside from 'it woz a mistake guv' and emphasising that I was only there 14 minutes, and the place was closed.  I think we can all agree forking out £95 for pulling over for a call is excessive, but I understand that isn't a legal defence necessarily.  I haven't owned and driven a car regularly for 8 years, I don't recall ever needing to be so wary about stopping briefly in places like hotel car parks, and indeed I've never received a fine/charge of any sort, but perhaps the market has shifted since then.  I recognise I should have been more observant. 

I will likely fire the appeal off anyway as if I don't try I'll never know, although I'm not sure what my best defence is still.  I will reread the sticky and main article. 

I do agree that perhaps my best chance is with GetAround.  I think possibly there is an argument for the £35 'compensation' and 'service' charge being excessive, price descrimination (the charge is €15 in other countries, only the UK is £35 for no clear reason), and another on not allowing me a chance to appeal.  

GetAround Terms of Service:

12.5 Compensations and associated Getaround fees:
 Different types of compensation and fees can be charged against the Renter in case of various behaviors or events. Getaround acts as an intermediary for the payment of compensation fees. Payment of compensation to the Car Owner is subject to the Renter’s prior payment thereof. The Renter is informed that if the Car Owner provides proof of the former’s liability, the Excess, compensations and penalties will be charged directly to any payment method used on Getaround by the Renter. By accepting the Terms, the Renter authorises the payment of such compensation and penalties. Compensations and fees applicable in the frame of Rentals are the following: 

d) Management fees for driving and parking tickets 

A management compensation fee for driving/parking tickets received by the Car Owner for an offence committed during the Rental is applicable, in addition to the amount of the ticket:

Compensation fee for the management of ticket notices:
For vehicles registered in the UK: £35 (includes a £5 Getaround Service fee)  
For vehicles registered France, Germany, Spain, Austria and Belgium €15 (includes a €4.50 Getaround Service fee)

If the Vehicle is impounded under the Renter’s responsibility, any associated costs will be charged to the Renter.
The management fee applies to each offence or traffic violation reported by the Car Owner.
In case of a ticket in Spain when the Renter is not Spanish: in all cases, the Renter shall bear the costs for the ticket (Getaround will debit the Renter and then repay the Car Owner).
- ticket without loss of points: the Car Owner will be responsible for resolving the ticket with the authority; 
- ticket with loss of points: the Car Owner will be responsible for resolving the ticket with the authority, including providing the requested information to resolve it. If the Car Owner does not possess some document or information relating to the Renter, he/she must contact Getaround.

GetAround Help Section/FAQs:

What happens if I receive a penalty notice?
Disobeying traffic regulations is highly dangerous and costly. You’re responsible for any tickets you receive during your time with the car: you’re responsible for paying the fine and will receive points on your licence (if applicable).
Depending on the ticket type, the owner will either:

• contest it: you’ll receive the ticket at your address and will have to pay it directly

• pay it and inform us: you’ll be debited for the ticket amount

Either way, you will be charged an additional £35 fee to compensate the owner and Getaround for managing the ticket.
For safety reasons, we may restrict your access to Getaround if you receive multiple tickets.

Relevant section of the rental agreement:

 I agree that whilst this rental agreement is in force, I will be liable as the hirer for this vehicle for any fixed penalty notice, congestion charge, or parking fines acquired for this vehicle under S66 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 and Schedule 6 Road Traffic Act 1991.

nosferatu1001

So, now we're back on track
Can people stop, for 2 minutes, from talking about appeals? There is no appeal. The amount was paid, no parking company will now entertain an appeal. Its also irrelevant
What actually matters is: what do the getaround terms say
Nothing else, nothing else, matters more than this. 

Redx

Most threads are about appealing an outstanding PCN , so it seemed to me that the OP had a PCN , tried to appeal it , then thought twice about it and posted on here , which is the usual scenario plus they mentioned appeals and popla appeals etc too

So as mentioned above , no PCN in the hirers name means no appeal route , so the OP misled me on that aspect completely

The hotel being closed is also irrelevant , it's private property and under supervision and enforcement

It's been paid by the RK , so no appeal to parking eye , no popla , nothing on that topic

The crux of the matter is if the OP has any recourse regarding the contracts they signed , so contract law , not parking at all , so nothing to do with what happened or not driving for 8 years , all that background info is irrelevant , it led them to this predicament , but the actual problem is the small print in the contract they signed