Parking appeal against parkingeye / lee valley ice centre

billy2276

Hello,

I found a post that matches my situation:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80586840

I parked here, illegally or not I cant remember, and received a PCN to my old address. It is now £110, 6 months later and I have missed the appeal period. 

There may be enough information in that post to draft a letter to popla saying that I was not the driver at the time. I think this is what the thread implies, lmk if I am mistaken.

I'm unsure if it is worth doing though, as I have missed the appeals period. Can I write an appeal to popla without having contacted parkingeye?

Should I just cough up the £110?

Thanks

Gr1pr

Not being the driver is no defence , especially if its not true, but if those bylaws apply then POFA 2012 schedule 4 doesn't apply, not relevant land , meaning enforcement can't happen against the keeper, but can happen to the driver 

No you cannot appeal to Popla without appealing to Parking Eye first, because you would need a rejection and a Popla code, both issued by Parking Eye, they are not going to issue a Popla code once the appeal deadline passed, so no Popla

Did the NTK PCN letter comply with POFA 2012. ?  Yes or No. ?  It did in the other thread but should not be there if its not relevant land, so is it all on your NTK PCN letter too. ?

There is no outcome yet on that previous thread, but troublemaker is likely to be correct 

KeithP

You cannot now appeal to PoPLA.

What you can do, and must do, is make sure that ParkingEye now have your correct address by writing to their Data Protection Officer informing them of your new address and instructing them to remove your old address from their records. 
If you fail to do that, I fear a Court Claim being raised at your old address, you knowing nothing about it and a Default Judgment being made against you without you having any opportunity to defend yourself.

Coupon-mad

There is no point paying.

Do not pay a private parking charge, all the time that this aggressive industry continues to duck & dive and have engineered it so that the Government is still trying to regulate them this year. No-one should be paying.

At the moment they can all go whistle.

billy2276

OK @KeithP so you reckon we should change the address, then wait and see if a court claim is made? Would this not incur loads more fines and fees?

@Coupon-mad Not sure about that, could you elaborate a bit?

Thanks both for your responses

KeithP

billy2276 said:

OK @KeithP so you reckon we should change the address, then wait and see if a court claim is made? Would this not incur loads more fines and fees?

Sorry I don't know the answer to that. Do you have 'loads more fines' in the pipeline?

But what I do know is that if you allow these parking companies to file court claims at a wrong address without you having any opportunity to defend yourself, then those 'loads more fines' suddenly turn into loads of County Court Judgments against you. That in turn will seriously hamper any attempts to get credit - think mortgage, phone contract, motor insurance, etc.

billy2276

@Gr1pr Thanks for that info. I was the driver at the time, and the parking fine has been addressed to my partner.

I have read this a few times and I don't understand how byelaw 18 and byelaw 57 exclude the ice centre from the definition of relevant land. I trust that troublemaker is correct however. I am unsure how to draft and make an appeal against parkingeye / popla with this information. Could you please give me some guidance on this if you know?

Troublemaker's post 0
"The Lee Valley Ice Centre is named in Schedule 1 as one of the grounds to which the Byelaws apply generally by virtue of Byelaw 2.  As Byelaw 18 prohibits overnight parking in any such ground and Byelaw 57 imposes penalties for breaching any of the Byelaws, the Lee Valley Ice Centre is excluded from the definition of 'relevant land' in POFA.  Which means that Parkingeye cannot hold a keeper liable for any parking contravention and is limited to pursuing the driver if they can find out who was driving.

The relevant provision in POFA is paragraph 3 which you can read here https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4.

Provided you haven't identified yourself as the driver in your initial appeal you have a strong argument for your POPLA appeal."

KeithP

billy2276 said:

I have read this a few times and I don't understand how byelaw 18 and byelaw 57 exclude the ice centre from the definition of relevant land. I trust that troublemaker is correct however. I am unsure how to draft and make an appeal against parkingeye / popla with this information. Could you please give me some guidance on this if you know?

Troublemaker's post 0
"The Lee Valley Ice Centre is named in Schedule 1 as one of the grounds to which the Byelaws apply generally by virtue of Byelaw 2.  As Byelaw 18 prohibits overnight parking in any such ground and Byelaw 57 imposes penalties for breaching any of the Byelaws, the Lee Valley Ice Centre is excluded from the definition of 'relevant land' in POFA.  Which means that Parkingeye cannot hold a keeper liable for any parking contravention and is limited to pursuing the driver if they can find out who was driving.

The relevant provision in POFA is paragraph 3 which you can read here https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4.

Provided you haven't identified yourself as the driver in your initial appeal you have a strong argument for your POPLA appeal."

Which bit don't you understand?

The land is covered by byelaws.
When you looked at POFA - you were given a link - you surely read the definition of 'relevant land'. You could then read on and discover that any driver's liability cannot be transferred to a keeper in such a place.

billy2276

I'm not a legal professional - I understand that document as a layman. I'm relying on your expertise Keith.

Would it be a worthwhile action if I were to write an email to parking eye stating:
- Byelaws 2, 18 and 57 exclude the Lee Valley Ice Centre from the definition of 'relevant land'
- I was not the driver of the vehicle and they cannot prove otherwise
- It is against the POFA for them to send the PCN to myself

Gr1pr

Most of us are lay people, volunteers, experienced or knowledgeable yes, but mainly victims helping others like yourself 

You can certainly state that you are not the driver, End of 

If bylaws apply, which is what troublemaker said, and should be believed not questioned, then schedule 4 of POFA doesn't apply,  so no keeper liability, only driver liability, if they know who was driving, which apparently they dont 

Parking companies can and do issue parking charges irrespective of whether POFA applies or not, so it is not against POFA to send a PCN to the keeper, POFA has nothing to do with it 

A parking company has a contract with the DVLA called KADOE, which allows them 6 months to obtain keeper details and one month to get the PCN to the keeper, even if the keeper wasn't driving, they can and do ask for drivers details, but just like POFA, its optional, not mandatory 

AFAIK POFA schedule 4 doesn't apply for this PCN, so you can state that, putting them to strict proof that it does, imply that it doesn't apply, so no keeper liability 

A driver can always be held to account and possibly liable, in any UK nation, irrespective of anything to do with POFA, POFA only applies on relevant land in England and Wales, land subject to bylaws is not relevant land 

Coupon-mad

billy2276 said:

@Coupon-mad Not sure about that, could you elaborate a bit?

Elaborate on my clear advice not to pay? Of course you don't pay.  We do this all the time.

You are not risking a CCJ as long as you don't leave a PPC with a choice of two addresses.  You must tell them to ERASE the old address.

That's all. There is no risk with us.  You actually WANT a court claim because that's the only fair dispute resolution you will get. And we see people win 99% of the time. No huge costs at risk, nothing bad at all. A court claim is not a CCJ in itself and a court claim is when you will win and the scam will be over.

The Government is in the process of regulating this rogue industry, who have squealed like pigs but the new Code of Practice is imminent.

And we are directly involved in the decision-making and the Code and wider regulatory landscape that is being formulated this year.  You couldn't pay for better advice than that offered free, on this forum.  We are experts, even though I say so myself.  Trust us.