Parking Eye - Lidl High Wycombe, leased car, 4 month issue date

Ce1ticWarri0r

Hi everyone, back again to fight another ticket. I feel like this is becoming a required skill just to get by in life these days!

So I will of course follow the usual complaint to landowner and follow the parking eye appeals guidance in the Newbiwe thread. Preempting the inevitable rejection though I am after a bit of advice as I am fairly sure the NTK is void anyway.

Date of Event 28/01/22
Date Issued 21/05/22
Number of days 117!

Now it is a lease so the original NTK would have gone to my leasing company. I am struggling to get my head around the legally required length of time they should have replied to me though? Can anyone assist?

Umkomaas

Is the PE letter to you headed up 'Notice to Hirer', does it include a copy of your Hire/Lease Agreement with the lease company, does the letter have any reference to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4)?

Ce1ticWarri0r

Is the PE letter to you headed up 'Notice to Hirer'
No, it is titled "Parking Charge Notice". No mention of notice to keeper or notice to hirer.

does it include a copy of your Hire/Lease Agreement with the lease company
No, however it does say that they have been supplied with one.

does the letter have any reference to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4)
Yes, in that section it says they have been notified by the lease company that I am the hirer and therefore they can recover the charges from me.

Ce1ticWarri0r

Letters posted here for simplicity.

Jenni_D

Close but no cigar ... they need to include a copy of the hire agreement with the PCN if they wish to invoke hirer liability.  

bargepole

There are two Lidl stores in High Wycombe.

The original small one in Desborough Avenue (HP11 2SB), and the new larger one on London Road (HP11 1LJ).

The notice doesn't make it clear which is the location in question, and therefore does not comply with POFA 2012.

Ce1ticWarri0r

Ha, amazing thanks guys. So I do the standard appeal and include those two things then. Thanks!

Jenni_D said:

Close but no cigar ... they need to include a copy of the hire agreement with the PCN if they wish to invoke hirer liability.  

What source would I reference this requirement in the appeal?

Jenni_D

Maybe try reading the POFA legislation?  https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4

14(2)(a) is of interest, as is 13(2)(b)

I could explain it further but it is better if you can understand it yourself.  

Ce1ticWarri0r

Thanks Jenni, have gone through POFA, they dont make these legal documents easy to follow do they! Based on advice here and using a template for hired vehicles I have personalised my initial objection letter here. Il email it to them if you all think this covers it.

Dear Parkingeye

RE: PCN Ref Number: XXXXXXXXX

I would like you to know I (as the registered keeper of the vehicle) am not ignoring your letter suggesting my liability for a charge related to a parking infraction that you state took place on 28th January 2022 at “Lidl High Wycome”

I wish to outline my current position in reference to your PCN.

Keepers Liability and POFA 2012

As stated in 8(2) of POFA 2012:

 

(a)Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.

 

Paragraph 13(2) of POFA 2012:

"The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given—

(a) A statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at thematerial time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;

(b) A copy of the hire agreement; and

(c) A copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.

AND

Paragraph 14(2) and (3) of POFA 2012:

(2) The conditions are that —

(a) The creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper;

(b) A period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed; and

(c) The vehicle was not a stolen vehicle at the beginning of the period of parking to which the unpaid parking charges relate.

(3) In sub-paragraph (2)(a) “the relevant period” is the period of 21 days beginning with the day after that on which the documents required by paragraph 13(2) are given to the creditor.[/I]

You fail to comply with the above POFA statements in the following ways.

- Your notice to keeper/hirer does not specify the relevant land on which this vehicle was parked. There are two Lidl stores in High Wycombe, you do not specify which.

- Your supplied “notice to hirer” does not included a copy of my hire agreement or signed statement of liability as required by the conditions set out in POFA Paragraph 14(2) and (3).

- You were required to send this information to me (as Registered Keeper) within 21 days after receiving them from the lease/hire company (Lex Auto lease).
- You were required to send these documents to me no later than 49 days after the NTK was sent to the hire company.
- Therefore I should have received these documents no later than 18 March 2022.
- As this has not happened and it took 117 days you cannot use POFA to assume keeper liability. There is more than one driver of the vehicle which you placed a PCN on.

In Summary...
- I wish to confirm to you I was NOT the driver of the vehicle.
- I am not obliged to disclose the identity of the driver and this does not affect my liability in this matter .
- As Parkingeye has not complied with paragraphs 8(2), 13 (2) and 14 (2) of POFA 2012, you cannot rely on the provisions of the Act and hold me liable as keeper.
- You will need to pursue this claim with the driver once you identify them.

 Further…

 I believe that your signs fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. Your unremarkable and obscure signs were not seen by the driver, are in very small print and the terms are not readable to drivers.

Questions
To begin our discussions, as this is purely a claim under a purported contract, and you have no statutory footing to issue penalties, I wish to make you aware of the following details and require the specific information so that I can assess the validity of your claim:

1. Who is the party that contracted with Parkingeye for the provision of their services at the site of the alleged to have taken place in High Wycombe?
2. What is the full legal identity of the landowner?
3. As you are not the landowner, please provide a contemporaneous and unredacted copy of your contract with the landholder that demonstrate that Parkingeye have the authority of the landowner to both issue parking charges and legislate in your own name or on behalf of the landowner .
4. Is your charge based on damages for breach of contract? - Yes or no?
5. If the charge is based on damages for breach of contract, please provide justification of this sum.
6. Is your charge based on a contractually agreed sum for the provision of parking? - Yes or no?
7. If the charge is based on a contractually agreed sum for the provision of parking please, provide a valid VAT invoice as you make no mention on VAT in any correspondence.
8. The signage to the site (from a seated position in the vehicle as it enters the car park is impossible to read and any. Please provide a copy of the sign that purportedly forms the basis of the contract entered into by the driver for my records.

Jenni_D

You're not the registered keeper, so don't go saying that. You were the keeper and hirer.

IMHO you need to get down to the crux of the issue:

1) Per 8(2)(a) ... they've not identified the relevant land as there are more than one Lidl sites in the noted town

2) Per 14(2)(a) ... they've failed to supply the required documentation listed in 13(2), particularly 13(2)(b) - even though they claim to have received it

As such their Notice to Hirer fails to meet the strict requirements of PoFA 2012 Schedule 4, thus they cannot hold the hirer liable for the charge.

Furthermore, they only get one "bite at the cherry" so they must cancel the PCN forthwith.

But wait for others to comment.

Umkomaas

That's the outdated, dreadful MSE template that no one should be using. Use the appropriate @Edna_Basher template from the NEWBIES FAQ Announcement, first post.