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

Ce1ticWarri0r

Umkomaas said:

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'?

I was referring to the lack of mentioning POFA since it was outside of the 14 days

Umkomaas

Ce1ticWarri0r said:

Umkomaas said:

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'?

I was referring to the lack of mentioning POFA since it was outside of the 14 days

That applies to the Registered Keeper (the hire company), not the hirer. 

Coupon-mad

14 days has nothing to do with it.

Nor does paragraph 9 of POFA Sch 4.

You do know what section of POFA applies and what the issues are for ParkingEye, as presumably you used the Edna Basher first appeal for lease/hire cars from the NEWBIES thread, that spells it out?

You can also search for notice to hirer winning appeal examples in POPLA DECISIONS.  It's been done umpteen hundred times and you merely need to copy a POPLA appeal that a hirer has done before.

Ce1ticWarri0r

Thanks guys, I got myself mixed up. The below is my working draft. It covers the relevant points I think.

Dear POPLA,

On the xxxxxxxxx, ParkingEye Ltd. issued a parking charge to myself. I am the hirer/lessee of the vehicle. They alleged that the vehicle in question 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 hirer 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 xxxxxxx, but they did not issue the PCN until xxxxxxxxxx, almost 4 months later. They have failed to supply the Notice to hirer within the timeframes stipulated by 14(2)(b) of POFA 2012. They were required to send these documents to the hirer no later than 49 days after the NTK was sent to the hire company. As this has not happened and it took 117 days they cannot use POFA to assume keeper liability. As such the Notice to Hirer fails to meet the strict requirements of PoFA 2012 Schedule 4, thus they cannot hold the hirer liable for the charge.

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”. Despite pointing this out, they continue to pursue me.

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

4. Per 14(2)(a) of POFA 2012 they have failed to supply the required documentation listed in 13(2), particularly 13(2)(b) - even though they claim to have received it.

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

6. I understand ParkingEye do not own the car park and have given me no information about their policy with the landowner or on site businesses, to cancel such a charge. 

Due to the above listed reasons I kindly request that you uphold my appeal and ask ParkingEye to drop their charges.

Yours faithfully,

xxxxxxxxxxxx

Jenni_D

#1 Are you saying that you know that they were late sending the NTK to the hire company? (Just want to be sure that you're not conflating the NTK and NTH dates).

I think #6 is a waste of time ... I don't believe there is any requirement for them to give you such information?

Coupon-mad

This isn't quite right, there is no 49 day period so I wouldn't start trying to create one:

They were required to send these documents to the hirer no later than 49 days after the NTK was sent to the hire company.

Ce1ticWarri0r

Thanks guys. Have read through POFA again a reworded as below.

On the 21/05/22, ParkingEye Ltd. issued a parking charge to myself. I am the hirer/lessee of the vehicle. They alleged that the vehicle in question 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 hirer I wish to refute these charges and have this PCN cancelled on the following grounds:

1. The process followed by ParkingEye has not been compliant with the strict rules laid out in POFA 2012 - 

1. Timeframes

1. ParkingEye’s own documentation (attached) shows that the event to which they refer occurred on 28/01/22, but they did not issue the notice to hirer until 21/05/22, 117 days later.

2. ParkingEye have failed to supply the Notice to hirer within the timeframes stipulated by 14(2)(b) of POFA 2012. 

3. ParkingEye were required to send a notice to keeper to the leasing company within 28 days of the parking event.

4. ParkingEye were then required to send a notice to hirer within 21 days of receiving the documents listed in POFA 13(2).

5. This is a total of 49 days. It took 117 days for the hirer to receive a notice. As such the Notice to Hirer fails to meet the strict requirements of POFA 2012 Schedule 4, thus they cannot hold the hirer liable for the charge. 

2. Cannot identify driver

1. 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. Identifying the land upon which the parking took place.

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

4. Documentation

1. Per 14(2)(a) of POFA 2012 they have failed to supply the required documentation listed in 13(2), particularly 13(2)(b) - even though they claim to have received it.

5. Notice to Hirer

1. POFA 14(5)(c) refers to a period of 21 days.

2. The Notice to hirer provided incorrectly tells me its 22 days.

2. The signage fails the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. The unremarkable and obscure signs were not seen by the driver, are in very small print and the terms are not readable to drivers.

3. I understand ParkingEye do not own the car park and have given me no information about their policy with the landowner or on site businesses, to cancel such a charge. 

Due to the above listed reasons I kindly request that you uphold my appeal and ask ParkingEye to drop their charges.

Yours faithfully,

Coupon-mad

That's not using any of the POPLA templates carefully written and linked for everyone to use, in the 3rd post of the NEWBIES thread.

Also, unless I missed it, all you've said about the NTH is that it took a long time to arrive. You've missed the killer omissions of the attachments? The documents!  

Jenni_D

Is there a time limit by when a NTH should arrive? If yes, does 117 days breach that time limit?

Coupon-mad

Yes - but the slam dunk obvious omission of attachments has been missed.