ParkingEye PCN - lease vehicle

KendalBoardGamer

Hi all,

I've had a look around the FAQs and other discussions, so hopefully can ask this without wasting people's time as appreciate you get a lot of traffic (excuse the pun) on here.

Dec 1st 2023 my vehicle allegedly overstayed it's 2 hour free parking welcome by 15 minutes in a ParkingEye-controlled supermarket car park.  First I knew of this was a PCN dated 19th Dec. It was issued quite some time after the alleged event and I have no memory of parking there, so I appealed based on it being issued over 14 days after the fact.  ParkingEye rejected the appeal and it went to POPLA.  I confidently gave the same appeal, and thats when ParkingEye provided a report saying the original PCN went to the owner (lease company) only 5 days after the fact, and POPLA rejected my appeal.

The evidence provided by ParkingEye is a near-black photograph showing 2 lights and a registration plate as below, I've obfuscated the reg number.  You cant identify the vehicle model / make / colour from the photo much less see any sign of a driver / passenger.  I also maintained in my POPLA appeal that I have no recollection of the event and ParkingEye have not provided sufficient evidence in a timely manner to refresh my memory.  ParkingEye has deliberately led me to appeal on the "after 14 days" line by dismissing my direct appeal without reasoning (just saying they still believe I've failed to comply with the contract), knowing that they'll win the POPLA appeal as they'd sent the PCN within 5 days - anything else "unrelated" was dismissed by POPLA regardless of validity.



I contacted the land owner (Booths supermarket) by email for assistance, the manager responded "I have requested to parking eye to cancel your fine, and I have also asked that you get confirmation of the cancellation".  ParkingEye instead issued me with a "Good will gesture" fine reduction back to £50: when I responded to the manager he said "Unfortunately, we can only request a cancellation, but they did confirm they would be dropping the price to £50" and has since ignored all of my emails.  Booths have also ignored all my Twitter messages beyond the initial one.

I am getting immense pressure from my wife to pay the £50 (I think I may have missed this window now anyway while chasing the Booths manager repeatedly) and to avoid the stress and potential court action.  I'd obviously like to avoid court action if at all possible - is it likely that I can get out of this situation without having to pay or go to court?  Beyond the initial appeal all ParkingEye allow me is the option to pay them, I cant see a way to engage with them further on this.

Thank you for your time, I do hope I havent wasted it.

Best wishes.

Fruitcake

Did you identify the driver in any of your appeals?
How did you know about the PCN since you say that the original NTK was sent to the lease company? Did you get a NTH? If so, there is no time limit in the PoFA for issuing it which is why the 14 day for the NTK was ignored/not relevant.
If you received a NTH, were all the documents mandated by paragraphs 13 and 14 supplied with it? I doubt it, and that is where you would have won at PoPLA if you appealed as hirer/lessee.

No, of course you shouldn't pay it. PE would have a hard job convincing a judge it was a valid claim if the landowner has instructed them to cancel it because a claim would not be commercially justified.

D_P_Dance

I am getting immense pressure from my wife to pay the £50

Please resist it, this is a total scam   Have you read this?

Parking Eye Signs, Oxford Road, Reading — MoneySavingExpert Forum

They would struggle in court to convince a judge that their signs wee fair.  

Coupon-mad

The 14 days doesn't apply to lease cars but you should have won at POPLA just by saying it's a lease car and the NTH didn't include the statutory enclosures.  Did POPLA know it was leased?

What did the POPLA decision say (word for word - but PLEASE PLEASE add ten paragraph breaks as we won't read a wall of text).

KendalBoardGamer

Fruitcake said:

Did you identify the driver in any of your appeals?
How did you know about the PCN since you say that the original NTK was sent to the lease company? Did you get a NTH? If so, there is no time limit in the PoFA for issuing it which is why the 14 day for the NTK was ignored/not relevant.
If you received a NTH, were all the documents mandated by paragraphs 13 and 14 supplied with it? I doubt it, and that is where you would have won at PoPLA if you appealed as hirer/lessee.

No, of course you shouldn't pay it. PE would have a hard job convincing a judge it was a valid claim if the landowner has instructed them to cancel it because a claim would not be commercially justified.

Sorry for not replying sooner, I didn't get notified that there were responses so I thought there weren't any.

My appeal to ParkingEye was kept brief - "As per your own parking charge notice document, date of event is listed as 01/12/2023 and the date the PCN was issued is listed as 19/12/2023.  Therefore the PCN was not issued within the statutory 14 day period and is therefore null and void.  Please confirm in writing that it has been withdrawn.". 

Response received "We have reviewed the details outlined in your appeal, but we are not in receipt of sufficient evidence to confirm that the terms and conditions were not breached. The signage displayed on site confirms that there is a maximum stay time in operation. Our records confirm that on the date of the event, the maximum stay time allowed was exceeded.  We are writing to advise you that your recent appeal has been unsuccessful and that you
have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure."

Obviously they rejected my appeal in this vague way knowing that when I went to POPLA I would appeal on the same 14-day basis and they could then produce evidence that it was issued within 14 days to the owner.  There was no mention of them having contacted the owner, or referring to me being a lessee that I can remember.

KendalBoardGamer

Fruitcake said:

Did you identify the driver in any of your appeals?
How did you know about the PCN since you say that the original NTK was sent to the lease company? Did you get a NTH? If so, there is no time limit in the PoFA for issuing it which is why the 14 day for the NTK was ignored/not relevant.
If you received a NTH, were all the documents mandated by paragraphs 13 and 14 supplied with it? I doubt it, and that is where you would have won at PoPLA if you appealed as hirer/lessee.

No, of course you shouldn't pay it. PE would have a hard job convincing a judge it was a valid claim if the landowner has instructed them to cancel it because a claim would not be commercially justified.

My appeal to POPLA was simply "The PCN was not issued within 14 days of the alleged parking violation and therefore is not legal.".  ParkingEye then responded to my POPLA appeal listing me as the "Hirer" but the PCN I received from them made no reference to me being a hirer or lessee of the vehicle.  Could you elaborate on what documents should have been supplied please?

My response to ParkingEye's report via my POPLA appeal stated that PE acted in bad faith suring the appeal process and the pertinent part was:

 "It is unreasonable for ParkingEye to expect me to have any recollection of the alleged event after such a long delay, or for me to still retain any records of any parking if such did occur.  I see no reason why I would be parked at a remote small supermarket car park for over 2 hours in late evening and I therefore dispute that I entered any contract with ParkingEye.  The alleged event was not brought to my attention until 3 weeks after it is claimed that it occurred so I have no way of recalling the events of the day or providing additional evidence, and the photographic "evidence" provided shows very little except the license plate (it certainly doesnt show the driver and it also does not show the vehicle make/model/colour so I have no way of knowing the legitimacy of the plates)."

At no time did I admit to being the driver or knowing who the driver was, given the delay in me receiving the PCN and the lack of clear photographic evidence.

Thanks in advance for any feedback / advice,
KendalBoardGamer.

Coupon-mad

But POPLA must have spotted from the evidence pack that the first NTK went to a company (lease firm) and that the supposed NTH that then came to you had no enclosures?

Did POPLA know it was leased?

What did the POPLA decision say (word for word - but PLEASE PLEASE add ten paragraph breaks as we won't read a wall of text).

KendalBoardGamer

Coupon-mad said:

But POPLA must have spotted from the evidence pack that the first NTK went to a company (lease firm) and that the supposed NTH that then came to you had no enclosures?

Did POPLA know it was leased?

What did the POPLA decision say (word for word - but PLEASE PLEASE add ten paragraph breaks as we won't read a wall of text).

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: 

• The PCN was not issued within 14 days of the alleged contravention. 

After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal that the PCN was not issued within 14 days. 

The appellant raises new grounds of appeal in relation that they did not receive letter issued on 5 December, the first one to them was 19 December and the photos provided by the parking operator only show the vehicle registration plate, not the driver or the make and model of the vehicle, they have no way of knowing the legitimacy of the vehicle registration plates.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the parking operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. The appellant has advised that the PCN was not issued with 14 days. 

Looking at the initial PCN that was issued, the date it was issued was the 5 December 2023 this was four days after the day of the event, this is in line with the Protection of Freedom Act (PoFA) 2012, paragraph 9 (2) (b). 

this states that: “inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;” 

To issue a PCN where the driver is unknown the PCN must be issued within 14 days as per PoFA paragraph 9 (5) which states: “The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.” 

The Keeper of the vehicle has provided the details of the hirer, the PCN has then been re issued to the appellant. There is no requirement for it to be issued within 14 days to the hirer as this is only required when issued to the keeper of the vehicle. 

The parking operator has provided photos of the signs at the car park which state that it is a two hour maximum stay. The signs also say that a PCN of £100 will be issued for not complying. It is the responsibility of the motorist when entering a car park that they make themselves aware of the signs and what the restrictions are. The appellant would have been required to leave the car park within the two hours allowed. 

In relation to the new grounds of appeal raised, the motorists’ comments section is where you can expand on the original grounds of appeal in rebuttal to what the parking operator has provided, it is not an opportunity to offer new grounds that the parking operator has not had the opportunity to review. 

As such I cannot consider these as part of the decision. After considering the evidence from both parties, the appellant has exceeded the maximum stay and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. 

As such, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly and I must refuse the appeal.

KendalBoardGamer

Coupon-mad said:

But POPLA must have spotted from the evidence pack that the first NTK went to a company (lease firm) and that the supposed NTH that then came to you had no enclosures?

Did POPLA know it was leased?

What did the POPLA decision say (word for word - but PLEASE PLEASE add ten paragraph breaks as we won't read a wall of text).

So they've acknowledged that it went to keeper then to me as lessee, but without reference to any missing information, I just got a 2-page standard PCN with no additional reference that I can see.

Coupon-mad

"The Keeper of the vehicle has provided the details of the hirer, the PCN has then been re issued to the appellant. There is no requirement for it to be issued within 14 days to the hirer as this is only required when issued to the keeper of the vehicle."

But it's not just about the dates: there are other POFA mandatory requirements for a Notice to Hirer, as set out in para 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 and the appellant is not expected to raise this law in minute detail.  But the appellant DID raise the point that the Notice they received (the only one addressed to them) was not validly given, so after looking at the 14 day point and dismissing that as irrelevant to a NTH, the Assessor should have moved on (slightly wider) to consider the NTH wording and mandatory enclosures (or lack of evidence of same).

The Assessor had a duty to consider the applicable law (whether an appellant raised the minutiae or not) and go on to look at whether the NTH was otherwise compliant. They failed.

The Assessor did not properly consider the validity of the NTH.  Schedule 4 requires two enclosures with a NTH and there were none, which the Assessor could glean were missing because there was no Lease Hire agreement in the evidence pack.

The Assessor failed to properly consider the requirements in POFA for a NTH. It is never enough to only look at the dates of a Notice that purports to use the POFA.

The Assessor erred in failing to consider the validity of the NTH fully.


(send the above as an email complaint to POPLA).

KendalBoardGamer

Coupon-mad said:

"The Keeper of the vehicle has provided the details of the hirer, the PCN has then been re issued to the appellant. There is no requirement for it to be issued within 14 days to the hirer as this is only required when issued to the keeper of the vehicle."

But it's not just about the dates: there are other POFA mandatory requirements for a Notice to Hirer, as set out in para 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 and the appellant is not expected to raise this law in minute detail.  But the appellant DID raise the point that the Notice they received (the only one addressed to them) was not validly given, so after looking at the 14 day point and dismissing that as irrelevant to a NTH, the Assessor should have moved on (slightly wider) to consider the NTH wording and mandatory enclosures (or lack of evidence of same).

The Assessor had a duty to consider the applicable law (whether an appellant raised the minutiae or not) and go on to look at whether the NTH was otherwise compliant. They failed.

The Assessor did not properly consider the validity of the NTH.  Schedule 4 requires two enclosures with a NTH and there were none, which the Assessor could glean were missing because there was no Lease Hire agreement in the evidence pack.

The Assessor failed to properly consider the requirements in POFA for a NTH. It is never enough to only look at the dates of a Notice that purports to use the POFA.

The Assessor erred in failing to consider the validity of the NTH fully.


(send the above as an email complaint to POPLA).

Will do thank you very much!!