Advice appreciated

downliner

Ok so here's the issue.

I was searching a website for some offers on a Spa Day with my Wife and came across an offer from the Royal Clifton Hotel & Spa in Southport.

Problem was their contact number no longer worked (strange) so the Wife and I decided to go and check it out for ourselves and inquire about any availability. 

Got to the Hotel and parked the car to pop in and ask if the Spa Offer was still good. It wasn't but to be honest given the Sales Photo of the Hotel compared to the actual thing I was put off anyway. Place looked like it hadn't been renovated in decades. 

Anyway got back home and 16 days later I get a letter with a £100 fine from nonother than ParkingEye.

So I appealed on the four main issues.

1. Date of Event and Date of Issue was 16 days so over the 14 day period as defined in POFA 2012 section (5) which states that "The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on

which the specified period of parking ended."

2. When I received this letter the terms of parking stated were "maximum time of 00 minutes, 00 seconds" making it technically not an agreeable contract given none of the signage stated you couldn't even park just to inquire and anyone who has seen the ParkingEye signage also knows how tiny it is meaning in order to agree to that contract you would actually have to stop the Car inside the Car Park in order to read it as the signage was located in the middle of the Car Park. 

3. The letter was addressed to the Keeper assuming them to be the Driver but the Keeper is technically not a person unless they can determine the Keeper is the same as the Driver which the accused is under no obligation to confirm or deny.

4. I already appealed to ParkingEye and their response (using an email you can't even respond to by the way) was that I was obligated to provide them information on who the Driver actually was but that was not the main reason I was appealing. The main reason was the 14 day cut off from event to issuance which they breached. 

So the question is what are my chances here seeing as I have 4 pretty strong arguments but personally I think the fact they took 16 days before issuing and then a further 2-3 days to receive then like a statute of limitations on a debt (6 years) they too have exceeded their window of opportunity.

Of course personally I would be arguing on the ridiculous basis that giving someone a time of 00 minutes, 00 seconds (how they state in the letter) for a Hotel that likely has people just stopping to inquire about accommodations is not only unethical but also against the contract ParkingEye are trying to get people who use the Car Park to agree to as they can only choose to agree to it had they entered the Car Park in the first place to read the sign at which point they don't have the choice to reject. 

Looking for some advice here.

D_P_Dance

PE's signs are pants.  Read this and complain to your MP.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5972164/parking-eye-signs-oxford-road-reading/p1

KeithP

The first thing to do is complain to the hotel.

Explain to them that you visited their place to make an enquiry about a possible future booking and for simply showing an interest in their hotel you have been rewarded with a Parking Charge Notice for £100.
Ask then to cancel this. 

Ignore PE's request for driver details.

You must exhaust your complaint with the hotel before doing anything else.

Redx

Wait for the Popla code , then use your legal arguments at Popla , namely

POFA

No keeper liability
Poor and inadequate signage
BPA CoP
CRA

Umkomaas

Does the Notice to Keeper (the very first letter received from ParkingEye) have a paragraph on the reverse side headed Protection of Freedoms Act 2012?

00mins 00secs is normally a clue to us that there was a need to enter a VRM into a keypad probably sited within the hotel.  We'll work with you to try to make the cost to you a similar £00 00p!  But at worst, if they allege a failure to key in VRM details, it will be £20 - provided, (if you don't pay it first) you win at POPLA.  Lose and it's £100. 

But the above are worst case scenarios. If they've failed to get the NtK to you within PoFA requirements, it's a slam dunk as long as you don't identify the driver - so don't go replying to their request for driver ID. 

downliner

KeithP said:

The first thing to do is complain to the hotel.

Explain to them that you visited their place to make an enquiry about a possible future booking and for simply showing an interest in their hotel you have been rewarded with a Parking Charge Notice for £100.
Ask then to cancel this. 

Ignore PE's request for driver details.

You must exhaust your complaint with the hotel before doing anything else.

Problem is I can't get through to them at all. They really want me to phone the premium rate number but i've read a lot of reviews on TrustPilot and TripAdvisor that they never ever get through to the manager and the Premium number is just another attempt to elicit money from people who may want to inquire. 

Nothing Royal about the Royal Clifton Hotel lol. 

downliner

Umkomaas said:

Does the Notice to Keeper (the very first letter received from ParkingEye) have a paragraph on the reverse side headed Protection of Freedoms Act 2012?

00mins 00secs is normally a clue to us that there was a need to enter a VRM into a keypad probably sited within the hotel.  We'll work with you to try to make the cost to you a similar £00 00p!  But at worst, if they allege a failure to key in VRM details, it will be £20 - provided, (if you don't pay it first) you win at POPLA.  Lose and it's £100. 

But the above are worst case scenarios. If they've failed to get the NtK to you within PoFA requirements, it's a slam dunk as long as you don't identify the driver - so don't go replying to their request for driver ID. 

There is nothing on the letter relating to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

Even if I wanted to reply to ParkingEye at this point I can't because the only number they provide is the payment line with no customer service and the email they responded with cannot be replied to as it just results in the can't find user mailing error. 

But yes I also think the 14 day rule being breached is a win. 

Umkomaas

But yes I also think the 14 day rule being breached is a win. 

When PE recognise they've failed to meet the critical PoFA timeline, they remove the PoFA paragraph from the NtK. They know they cannot hold the registered keeper liable. This can be so easily beaten at POPLA if PE don't withdraw beforehand. 

So, for now, just await a further reply from PE. They have 35 days to formally and fully respond to your initial appeal - their request for driver ID is not their final response. Once 35 days have passed, they should reject your appeal and enclose a POPLA verification code which you use to launch your second stage appeal. This is where you will win - slam dunk.

But don't let this drift much beyond 35 days with no response from PE. You'll need to complain to the BPA and involve them in rattling the cage. Don't fall asleep on it!

This should soon be over - provided no driver ID is presented to PE. 

downliner

Umkomaas said:

But yes I also think the 14 day rule being breached is a win. 

When PE recognise they've failed to meet the critical PoFA timeline, they remove the PoFA paragraph from the NtK. They know they cannot hold the registered keeper liable. This can be so easily beaten at POPLA if PE don't withdraw beforehand. 

So, for now, just await a further reply from PE. They have 35 days to formally and fully respond to your initial appeal - their request for driver ID is not their final response. Once 35 days have passed, they should reject your appeal and enclose a POPLA verification code which you use to launch your second stage appeal. This is where you will win - slam dunk.

But don't let this drift much beyond 35 days with no response from PE. You'll need to complain to the BPA and involve them in rattling the cage. Don't fall asleep on it!

This should soon be over - provided no driver ID is presented to PE. 

Did i mention they responded to my initial appeal but they seem to have read part of it and chose to ignore the PoFA requirement. Convenient. 

This was the full response

Dear Sir / Madam,

Thank you for your correspondence in relation to the Parking Charge incurred on 25 July 2021 at 14:06, at Royal Clifton Hotel & Spa, Southport car park.

We are writing to advise you that your recent appeal has been placed on hold whilst we await further information.

You have stated that you were not the driver of the vehicle at the date and time of the breach of the terms and conditions of the car park, but you have not indicated who was. ParkingEye have placed this charge on hold for 28 days to enable you to provide the evidence requested.

If this information is not provided within 28 days, the appeal may well be rejected and a POPLA code provided.

Alternatively, payment can be made by telephoning our offices on 0330 555 4444 or by visiting www.parkingeye.co.uk or by posting a cheque or postal order to the address detailed below.

If this charge has been paid and you choose to provide further evidence relating to your appeal, please forward this to us for consideration.

Yours faithfully,
ParkingEye Team

Original letter was received 16 days after the event btw. 18 if you also count postage time. 

KeithP

If this information is not provided within 28 days, the appeal may well be rejected and a POPLA code provided.

It's been said several times... you now wait for your PoPLA code.

downliner

KeithP said:

If this information is not provided within 28 days, the appeal may well be rejected and a POPLA code provided.

It's been said several times... you now wait for your PoPLA code.

Many people would refer to that as "passing the buck" and it's sad that these type of businesses have that safety net but that's the way it goes. 

The BPA needs serious reformation.