PCN from Parkingeye for allegedly parking in a hotel

Le_Kirk

You comment on anything that ParkingEye has written that is wrong.  If you made any point in your appeal and they haven't countered it, you win that point.  You only need to win on one point whereas PE need to win on everything you said!  You cannot add new points.

Coupon-mad

POPLA comments stage is already covered in the NEWBIES thread third post.

UncleThomasCobley

You can highlight that PE have failed PoFA at 14 (2)(a) by not providing the necessary copes of the documents. They claim in their response that they have received a copy of the Hire Agreement but they must include a copy of that Hire Agreement together with a copy of a Statement of Liability and a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that, at the material time, the vehicle was hired to the person named under the Hire Agreement when they issue their NtH and they have not evidenced that they have done so.

PoFA 14 (2)(a) refers to 13 (2)(a), (b) and ©. They have not provided those documents and so cannot rely on PoFA to hold the Hirer liable.

Make sure you highlight that in your response so that the assessor can see and understand it.

hirersezn

Alright this is what i came up with for the POPLA comments, is this any good or could i add to this?

__________________________________

1. Landowner contract

The contract is dated 1st August 2015 yet says 'for at least 12 months'. But there is no evidence this contract was renewed or was even valid after that initial period. It cannot possibly nor fairly be assumed that the contract continues now, because private parking firms are notorious for leaving signs up when they should be removed - and because the burden falls upon the operator to prove landowner authority on the date of the event, not merely show they had historical authority from an unidentified signatory, between August 2015 and August 2016 based on a hand-altered sheet.

Landowner contract is heavily redacted.

Previous POPLA decisions have confirmed that redacted, old contracts and those signed only by another agent (not the landowner and with no evidence of authority flowing from the landowner) are not acceptable as evidence, for the purposes of POPLA.

2. Notice fails to comply with POFA

ParkingEye have failed PoFA at 14 (2)(a) by not providing the necessary copies of the documents. They claim in their response that they have received a copy of the Hire Agreement but they must include a copy of that Hire Agreement together with a copy of a Statement of Liability and a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that, at the material time, the vehicle was hired to the person named under the Hire Agreement when they issue their NtH and they have not evidenced that they have done so.

PoFA 14 (2)(a) refers to 13 (2)(a), (b) and (c). They have not provided those documents and so cannot rely on PoFA to hold the Hirer liable.

3. ANPR Accuracy & Compliance

ParkingEye have failed to show that the driver has in fact entered the underground car park 

4. Parking location

ParkingEye have shown in their document with images that the parking spaces are in fact underground and not the hotel lobby which is opposite the hotel entrance.

5.Parking sign accuracy

In the landowner contract provided by ParkingEye, it shows the parking tariffs are:

Up to 2 hours £7.50

Up to 4 hours £12.50

Up to 8 hours £20.00

Up to 12 hours £22.50

Up to 24 hours £32.00

However on the parking signs it shows otherwise which contradict the Landowner agreement.

Up to 2 hours £15.00

Up to 4 hours £20.00

Up to 6 hours £30.00

Up to 12 hours £40.00

Up to 24 hours £50.00

The parking sign also shows that you must park within marked bays, however there are no parked bays in the hotel lobby which indicates that the parking sign does not apply to the hotel lobby.

KeithP

hirersezn said:

The parking sign also shows that you must park within marked bays, however there are no parked bays in the hotel lobby which indicates that the parking sign does not apply to the hotel lobby.

But surely, if you must park in a marked bay and you failed to do that, you have failed to park in accordance with the signs.
Furthermore, if there were no marked bays where you parked, doesn't that too indicate that you parked where parking is prohibited?

UncleThomasCobley

I'd swap points #1 and #2 around. It is more likely that you would win on PoFA.

Coupon-mad

I agree.  And be careful not to imply who parked.

hirersezn

KeithP said:

hirersezn said:

The parking sign also shows that you must park within marked bays, however there are no parked bays in the hotel lobby which indicates that the parking sign does not apply to the hotel lobby.

But surely, if you must park in a marked bay and you failed to do that, you have failed to park in accordance with the signs.
Furthermore, if there were no marked bays where you parked, doesn't that too indicate that you parked where parking is prohibited?

Alright i'll remove this part thanks

UncleThomasCobley said:

I'd swap points #1 and #2 around. It is more likely that you would win on PoFA.

Alright will do


__________________________________________
Final revision for submission:

1. Notice fails to comply with POFA

ParkingEye have failed PoFA at 14 (2)(a) by not providing the necessary copies of the documents. They claim in their response that they have received a copy of the Hire Agreement but they must include a copy of that Hire Agreement together with a copy of a Statement of Liability and a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that, at the material time, the vehicle was hired to the person named under the Hire Agreement when they issue their NtH and they have not evidenced that they have done so.

PoFA 14 (2)(a) refers to 13 (2)(a), (b) and (c). They have not provided those documents and so cannot rely on PoFA to hold the Hirer liable.

2. Landowner contract

The contract is dated 1st August 2015 yet says 'for at least 12 months'. But there is no evidence this contract was renewed or was even valid after that initial period. It cannot possibly nor fairly be assumed that the contract continues now, because private parking firms are notorious for leaving signs up when they should be removed - and because the burden falls upon the operator to prove landowner authority on the date of the event, not merely show they had historical authority from an unidentified signatory, between August 2015 and August 2016 based on a hand-altered sheet.

Landowner contract is heavily redacted.

Previous POPLA decisions have confirmed that redacted, old contracts and those signed only by another agent (not the landowner and with no evidence of authority flowing from the landowner) are not acceptable as evidence, for the purposes of POPLA.

3. ANPR Accuracy & Compliance

ParkingEye have failed to show that the driver has in fact entered the underground car park 

4. Parking location

ParkingEye have shown in their document with images that the parking spaces are in fact underground and not the hotel lobby which is opposite the hotel entrance.

5.Parking sign accuracy

In the landowner contract provided by ParkingEye, it shows the parking tariffs are:

Up to 2 hours £7.50

Up to 4 hours £12.50

Up to 8 hours £20.00

Up to 12 hours £22.50

Up to 24 hours £32.00

However on the parking signs it shows otherwise which contradict the Landowner agreement.

Up to 2 hours £15.00

Up to 4 hours £20.00

Up to 6 hours £30.00

Up to 12 hours £40.00

Up to 24 hours £50.00

KeithP

@hirersezn, what happened next?

hirersezn

For this case, it was sent to POPLA. Decision was successful.

I have previously posted a comment regarding the outcome here: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80708172/#Comment_80708172


Btw @KeithP I am creating a new thread for the current ongoing appeal from PE