Parking Eye - Rejected Appeal

joem23

Hi, i read the newbies thread and replied with defence given in there with no proof to who was driving and insufficient signage as i genuinely didnt know i was entering into a parking eye car park as there was no signs to say.

They have replied saying they are not in receipt of sufficient evidence to confirm the t&cs were not breached.

What steps should i take next ? They have advised about a POPLA is this the next step to take.

Thanks for any help in advance.
Regards,

Joe

Fruitcake

You say you didn't tell ParkingEye who was driving, yet have told anyone reading your post who that was. Parking companies read this forum. However, if the NTK is not a "golden ticket" then it is irrelevant because the keeper can be held liable.

What happened when the keeper complained to the landowner?

If Plan A fails, then definitely appeal to PoPLA. Note that the code will last 32 days.

Use all the points available to you from the third post of the NEWBIES. Get pics of the site and signage to include in your appeal. If The Driver didn't see the signs then they must have been inadequate.

Post your draft here for checking before you submit it.

fisherjim

As above if the driver didn't see any signs they can't have been very prominent but without dated photographic evidence POPLA will side with the PPC

joem23

After reading, i was going to submit a defence based on the two points of no signage and no proof to who was driving.

The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge

In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. As there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

The burden of proof rests with the Operator to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

Understanding keeper liability
'There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

There is no 'reasonable presumption' in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.'

Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.

This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''

joem23

fisherjim said:

As above if the driver didn't see any signs they can't have been very prominent but without dated photographic evidence POPLA will side with the PPC

Do i need to go back to car park and take photos ? 

fisherjim

joem23 said:

fisherjim said:

As above if the driver didn't see any signs they can't have been very prominent but without dated photographic evidence POPLA will side with the PPC

Do i need to go back to car park and take photos ? 

How else can you provide that evidence? Also dash cam footage is good.

joem23

fisherjim said:

joem23 said:

fisherjim said:

As above if the driver didn't see any signs they can't have been very prominent but without dated photographic evidence POPLA will side with the PPC

Do i need to go back to car park and take photos ? 

How else can you provide that evidence? Also dash cam footage is good.

i dont have dashcam i can go back to the place and take photos. should i do this and upload that along with above defence to popla

Coupon-mad

There's no point rushing a POPLA appeal (which has a month to use the code) when the landowner can just cancel the PCN for you this week.

If Plan A fails after exhausting that avenue this month, then still no rushing a POPLA Appeal.  ParkingEye can usually hold you liable anyway, as registered keeper ('I wasn't driving' only wins in non-POFA cases). You haven't told us that you have the 'golden ticket' that the NEWBIES FAQS thread shows everyone a picture of.  

You need to slow down and read NEWBIES PLEASE READ THESE FAQS FIRST.

ParkingEye also never have car parks with no signs.  Usually, they are in fact pretty prominent.  Which car park?

KeithP

joem23 said:

The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge.

joem23 said:

The burden of proof rests with the Operator to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

joem23 said:

Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.

Those few words indicate that you are intent on not admitting to being the driver.

That's fine, but now read again all your other posts where, in every one, you tell the world exactly who was driving.

You are posting on a public forum. 
Anyone can read it - including ParkingEye.

It won't take many more revelations before they will know exactly which parking event is being discussed.

Umkomaas

If the PE Notice to Keeper is PoFA-compliant, then all your pleadings about the driver's identity not being known is utterly irrelevant. PE NtKs generally are PoFA-compliant, but you can check out whether they are invoking keeper liability by looking at the reverse of the NtK for a paragraph headed 'Protection of Freedoms Act'.  If it's there, forget all the stuff about the driver, if it's not there, then it's game on!

joem23

There is a protection of freedoms act on the back of the letter, so the NTK part is irrelevant. 

So i should only focus on the visibility and lack of signage in the car park ??