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

Ce1ticWarri0r

*EDITED TO ADD LATE ARRIVAL OF NTK*

Thank you for taking the time to read through. I have looked through all the templates in the Newbies thread and selected the more concise one. After adding a couple of lines relevant to my particular PCN I have the below.

Dear Parkingeye
Re: PCN No. XXXXXXXX

I challenge this 'PCN' as lessee of the car and subsequently request all future correspondence be sent directly to myself at the address listed below:

My street
My Town
My Postcode

I am the vehicle's hirer and keeper for the purpose of the corresponding definitions under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) now it is proven that in this instance, the registered keeper is not the "keeper" (as defined under POFA), Civil Enforcement has no reason to contact Lex Autolease again regarding this PCN.

Per 8(2)(a) of POFA 2012 You have not identified the relevant land as there are more than one Lidl sites in the noted town. You do not specify which.

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

Per 14(2)(b) You have failed to supply the Notice to hirer within the stipulated timeframes. You were required to send these documents to me no later than 49 days after the NTK was sent to the hire company. As this has not happened and it took 117 days you cannot use POFA to assume keeper liability.

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

Due to the above listed reasons, you must cancel the PCN forthwith.

I also 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.

Further, I understand you do not own the car park and you have given me no information about your policy with the landowner or on site businesses, to cancel such a charge. So please supply that policy as required under the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either offer me a POPLA code or cancel the charge.

Thank you for your cooperation and I look forward to receiving your response within the relevant timescales specified under the British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice.

Yours faithfully,
X

FrankCannon

Change "Civil Enforcement" to ParkingEye.

Jenni_D

And change Lex Autolease if that isn't your lease co.

Ce1ticWarri0r

Lex autolease actually is the right one lol. Good spot on the Parkingeye one though! Il get this emailed over to them.

1505grandad

"Per 8(2)(a) of POFA 2012 ...."

As this is a anpr ticket and not one on a windscreen  -  Para 9 of PoFA 2012 should quoted.

Coupon-mad

Ce1ticWarri0r said:

Lex autolease actually is the right one lol. Good spot on the Parkingeye one though! Il get this emailed over to them.

But they don't accept email appeals.  They have an appeals portal page.

Ce1ticWarri0r

Coupon-mad said:

Ce1ticWarri0r said:

Lex autolease actually is the right one lol. Good spot on the Parkingeye one though! Il get this emailed over to them.

But they don't accept email appeals.  They have an appeals portal page.

Yeah discovered that! Thanks.

Ce1ticWarri0r

Hi folks, so got the inevitable rejection letter that's clearly a copy paste and ignores all the points I made.

On to POPLA next!

Ce1ticWarri0r

OK so looks like its a "Golden Ticket"

I am trying to adapt the below aas lesee/hirer. can I justy change registered keeper to those words?

Dear POPLA,

On the XXXXX, ParkingEye Ltd. issued a parking charge to myself (as keeper of the vehicle) highlighting that the above mentioned vehicle had been recorded via their automatic number plate recognition system for remaining at the car park longer than the stay authorised. There was no windscreen ticket on the vehicle - the notice to keeper was sent via post.

As the registered keeper I wish to refute these charges and have this PCN cancelled on the following grounds:

1. The Notice to Keeper does not comply with sub-paragraph 9 (2 & 5) and is not POFA compliant - ParkingEye’s own documentation (attached) shows that the event to which they refer occurred on XXXXX, but they did not issue the PCN until XXXXX, almost 4 months later.

2. 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 fact their own PCN states “We would like to remind you that, if you were the driver at the time of the parking event you are required to pay or appeal the parking charge”.

3. Despite pointing out I was not the driver at the appeal stage, they continue to pursue me.

Please see below for details

1) This Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the dates and the wording used.

Under schedule 4, paragraph 4 of the POFA, an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle if certain conditions are met as stated in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 & 12. ParkingEye have failed to fulfil the conditions which state that the keeper must be served with a compliant NTK in accordance with paragraph 9, which stipulates a mandatory timeline and wording:-

’’The notice must be given by— (a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or(b) sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.’’

The applicable section here is (b) because the NTK was delivered by post. Furthermore, paragraph 9(5) states: ’’The relevant period...is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended’’

The NTK sent to myself as Registered Keeper arrived 53 days after the alleged event. - see the attached PDF from ParkingEye with the ‘event date’ of DATE and the issue date of DATE (ie, over one full month later!)

2)The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.

At no point have ParkingEye provided any proof as to the identity of the driver of the vehicle; nor have I provided them with the identity of the driver (nor do I intend to).

I have contested this with ParkingEye with regards to their PCN reference REFERENCE, but they have written to me (dated DATE) to say I have been unsuccessful and provided POPLA reference REFERENCE.

I sincerely hope you are able to help me.

Many thanks,

NAME

Umkomaas

You're appealing this as the hirer/lessee - para 9 of PoFA does not apply to the hirer, you need to be looking at paras 13 and 14. But your main point must be, in the context of PoFA, the lack of a signed hire agreement accompanying the NtH. 

OK so looks like its a "Golden Ticket"

What makes it a 'Golden Ticket'?