ParkingEye - How Long To Issue POPLA Code?

rosborne

Hi everyone - hope you can help me...

My partner's vehicle was used to park in a local car park a few months back, after which she received a PCN from ParkingEye (PE) as she is the registered keeper.

She has appealed to PE as registered keeper on the grounds that the signage was poor. PE responded and asked her to name the driver, which she ignored and let the clock run out on the appeal.

That has now happened and PE have rejected the appeal (unsurprisingly). They have stated that my partner can appeal to POPLA, but we cannot see a code anywhere in their email or its attachment.

Should the code have been supplied already or does it take a little while to come through after the rejection email?

She will be appealing to POPLA (using the excellent templates on this site) as the PCN makes no reference to keeper liability / POFA.

My understanding is that PE cannot suddenly switch to using POFA and she therefore has a "golden ticket", meaning this should be an easy win so long as she continues to exercise her right not to name the driver? While it is an ANPR controlled car park, my understanding is that these images cannot be used to infer who was driving and therefore they have no evidence to tell them who to pursue?

Thanks!

Gr1pr

That rejection should contain a 10 digit Popla code, so double check it, possibly near the top on the first page. ?

If its not there, the apellant should complain about it to PE on the complaints link on the BPA AOS members list 

Grizebeck

it WILL be on the email attachment.  If not post up the front page of the letter 

rosborne

Thanks both - sorry, we were both being completely blind! Found it now.

Assuming that my understanding is correct and we do indeed have an easy win on our hands given the lack of mention to POFA / keeper liability on the PCN, we'll get the POPLA appeal sent off.

Thanks again!

Gr1pr

Put the POFA issues first, and no keeper liability, if you are correct, but add the usual suspects like no landowner authority and poor signage etc too. You only have to win with one point at popla

Umkomaas

Usually, if PE have issued the PCN correctly, they include the PoFA warning. That is almost always on the reverse side in a paragraph headed 'Protection of Freedoms Act'.  Please check. 

What kind of car park is this?  Maybe one where bylaws apply - harbour, port, railway ......?

LDast

rosborne said:

She will be appealing to POPLA (using the excellent templates on this site) as despite originally receiving the PCN within the prescribed 14 days, the PCN makes no reference to keeper liability / POFA.

That 14 days has now long passed, so my understanding is that PE cannot suddenly switch to using POFA and she therefore has a "golden ticket", meaning this should be an easy win so long as she continues to exercise her right not to name the driver? While it is an ANPR controlled car park, my understanding is that these images cannot be used to infer who was driving and therefore they have no evidence to tell them who to pursue?

Methinks you misunderstand how PoFA works. Whilst it is highly unlikely that PE issued an NtK that is not compliant with PoFA, the actual mention of PoFA is not a requirement, only that the requirements of PoFA are fully complied with.

If you have waited for 14 days since the appeal rejection, then you have probably wasted 14 days of the 33 days that the POPLA code is valid (not the 28 days as stated in the appeal rejection).

So, if the NtK fully complies with all the requirements of PoFA, irrespective of whether PoFA is mentioned or not, then they can transfer liability for the PCN from the unknown driver to the known keeper as long as the known keeper does not blab the identity of the driver, unintentionally or otherwise. I suspect that the 14 days you are thinking about is whether the NtK was served to the known keeper within the timescale required by PoFA.

Don't make the common mistake of thinking that the actual date the keeper received the NtK has any bearing on matters. It doesn't. Only the date the NtK was "deemed" to have been served matters. To calculate whether the NtK was served within the 14 day requirement of PoFA, count the number of days between the date of the parking event and the date that the NtK was issued. Then add 2 "working days" plus any non-working day, if any, to that date and if the sum comes to more than 14, then the NtK was not issued with full compliance of the requirements of PoFA and liability cannot be transferred from the unknown driver to the known keeper.

rosborne

The appeal rejection only came through last night, so I don't think we've wasted any of the POPLA appeal time.

I'll read through the NTK again tonight, but when I looked before, I could see absolutely no reference of Keeper Liability, which I believe is a key part of making it POFA compliant. It looked very much like this one: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80390573/#Comment_80390573

I'm basing this on the following which the POFA says the NTK must:

"warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—

(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and

(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,

the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;"

My understanding is that if there is no mention of keeper liability on the NTK as in the example above, then they can only pursue the driver regardless of how quickly they served the NTK?

Umkomaas

If the PE NtK is exactly as you have compared with that in the above link, then it seems to be non-PoFA (particularly if the reverse side has no para headed 'Protection of Freedoms Act'). Why PE have issued that could be linked to the kind of car park covered by bylaws. Can you tell us the type of car park and its location please?  We are likely to have covered it on the forum at some stage. 

rosborne

Umkomaas said:

If the PE NtK is exactly as you have compared with that in the above link, then it seems to be non-PoFA (particularly if the reverse side has no para headed 'Protection of Freedoms Act'). Why PE have issued that could be linked to the kind of car park covered by bylaws. Can you tell us the type of car park and its location please?  We are likely to have covered it on the forum at some stage. 

The car park is "Bolton Wanderers FC - B, C&E car park". It's located just outside the football stadium so (I assume) belongs to the club.

In case I'm being blind (again) or there's any other useful information, I've included redacted copies of the front and back of the NTK.

It may well be that LDast is right now I re-read that very helpful information - I think I may have made the common mistake in counting the 14 days.

If I understand the counting logic correctly, it's 28th April -> 9th May. that's a Thursday, so I then need to add 2 more working days, plus the weekend which is Monday 13th. I therefore make it 15 days, which would indeed be outside the 14 days.

That would explain the non-POFA compliant notice.

I guess that brings me back to the second part of my original post... Is this now an easy win so long as we quote non-POFA compliant, no driver liability, driver not revealed plus the usual poor signage, land owner authority etc?

Thanks so much for the help everyone - hugely appreciated.

Gr1pr

Correct, the POFA paragraph is missing from the back, should be below the first paragraph, but isnt