Void Receipt, Wye Valley Visitor Centre, PCN Parking Eye

Doomswell

Hi Everyone,

I would appreciate some help with a Parking Charge Notice I have received for parking in the Wye Valley Visitor Centre, Ross on Wye on 11th July 2024.

I was not the driver, I am the registered keeper of the vehicle, I have not said who the driver was.    The driver was visiting the Butterfly Zoo, parked, bought a ticket and went into the Butterfly Zoo, paying for admission with the same credit card.

On 18th July I received a Parking Charge Notice,( PCN) from Parking Eye, and after rummaging around in the bin I found the parking ticket, which turned out to be a "void receipt" meaning that the machine had not taken the money.

Now you will laugh at my naivety, I replied to Parking Eye saying it was all a mistake and I had thought I had paid but the little bit of paper the machine issued was not actually a parking ticket, I had no intention of not paying, so could I just pay now?

I used "I" rather than explain who was driving.

Parking Eye replied on 29th July rejecting my explanation with a standard letter that did not look like anyone had actually read my submission.

Next I tried emailing Lindsay Haye, the owner of the car park and Butterfly Zoo, he denied being able to cancel the charge saying it wasn't his machine, etc.

So that is the stage I am at now.  I am somewhat annoyed at being asked to pay £100 instead of the £3 the driver tried to pay, and the fact that the credit card worked a few minutes later suggests that it was the ticket machine.

Am I on a hiding to nowhere? I'm guessing POPLA will reject an appeal.

Any thoughts anyone?

Thanks.

DE_612183

I would point out to Lindsay Haye that Parking Eye must have a contract with Wye Valley Visitor centre - so if it's not him - who is the land owner that the contract is with.

I'd also advise them that without any help you'll post a review on Trip Advisor alerting other potential visitors of this.

You are irght that POPLA may well reject your appeal - but thats not the end of the matter.

LDast

Hopefully you didn't actually identify the driver inadvertently. There is a flaw in the NtK (yes, even PE are not infallible). Here is a précis of why the keeper cannot be liable for the charge:

Schedule 4, Paragraph 8 or 9(2)(e)(i) of PoFA 2012

This paragraph mandates that for a parking operator to hold the vehicle's registered keeper liable for a parking charge, the Notice to Keeper (NtK) must include:

An "Invitation to Pay": The notice must explicitly invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges.

Exact Wording: The wording must clearly convey this invitation and mere implication or indirect suggestions are insufficient. The act requires strict compliance, meaning that any failure to fully incorporate this invitation renders the notice non-compliant with the requirements of PoFA 2012.

Non-Compliance Issue

If the NtK fails to include a clear "invitation to pay", or any synonym of the word "invitation", this omission is a breach of Schedule 4, Paragraph 8 or 9(2)(e)(i). Even if the notice suggests that payment is required, without an explicit invitation directed towards the keeper to settle the charge, the notice does not meet the exacting requirements of PoFA 2012.

Significance of Full Compliance

Strict Liability: The law mandates full and exact compliance with the specified wording and content outlined in PoFA 2012.

Partial or Substantial Compliance Insufficient: Even if the notice largely complies with other requirements, the absence of a clear invitation to the keeper to pay is a significant flaw. The operator cannot rely on partial or even substantial compliance — every element as specified in the legislation must be present and correct.

Consequences for the Operator

Challenge Basis: If the notice is found to lack this crucial element, it can be used as a basis to challenge the parking charge.

Keeper Liability: The operator cannot transfer liability to the keeper, which significantly weaken their case if the notice to the driver or other requirements are also flawed or if the driver is unknown.

Conclusion

In summary, a PCN that does not include an explicit "invitation" for the keeper to pay the charge is not fully compliant with Schedule 4, Paragraph 8 or 9(2)(e)(i) of PoFA 2012. Since the law demands strict adherence, any omission, even if minor, invalidates the notice and relieves the keeper of any obligation to pay. This should be raised in any appeal or legal response to the charge.

For now, you should simply use a simple appeal to PE who are more likely than not to reject the appeal. The point is to get a POPLA code where you can expand on the above argument.

I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, namely no "invitation", or any synonym of the word, for the keeper to pay the charge as per paragraph 9(2)(e)(i), you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. 

Since your PCN is a vague template, I require an explanation of the allegations and your evidence. You must include a close up actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date as well as your images of the vehicle.

I suggest you cancel the PCN or issue me with a POPLA code.

Gr1pr

Doomswell said:

Hi Everyone,

I would appreciate some help with a Parking Charge Notice I have received for parking in the Wye Valley Visitor Centre, Ross on Wye on 11th July 2024.

Parking Eye replied on 29th July rejecting my explanation with a standard letter that did not look like anyone had actually read my submission.

Next I tried emailing Lindsay Haye, the owner of the car park and Butterfly Zoo, he denied being able to cancel the charge saying it wasn't his machine, etc.

Any thoughts anyone?

Thanks.

It may not be his machine, but if he or his company are the landowner then its about the land used for parking, if its his land, he is jointly and severally liable with the contractor 

Parking companies rarely bother to read appeals, it's all about money, profit , not sympathy for the circumstances 

We assume that you already have a popla code. ?

Assuming that you do, why do you think that Popla would find in your favour. ?

POPLA will look at what it is, a pay to park car park, no valid payment was made, even if it was attempted 

They may find in your favour on signage, no landowner authority, or POFA liability ( but I doubt it. )

Doomswell

Thanks for comments so far, I do have a POPLA code,
DE_612183 - There are lots of comments about this car park
LDast - There is no actual "invitation to pay", does this invalidate the PCN?  Is it that simple?
Gr1pr - I do not think POPLA will find in my favour as the parking was not paid for, despite trying to pay for it.

Grizebeck

Tell him its In their contract and handbook it can be cancelledx

Gr1pr

Doomswell said:

Thanks for comments so far, I do have a POPLA code,

LDast - There is no actual "invitation to pay", does this invalidate the PCN?  Is it that simple?

Gr1pr - I do not think POPLA will find in my favour as the parking was not paid for, despite trying to pay for it.

No its not that simple, nothing invalidates a private PCN charge, it could mean that the invoice is unenforceable against the Registered Keeper, but that doesn't let the driver off the hook, they are hooked if they are known or admitted 

Contract law tends to be about the facts, not the intention, the driver or paying person should have checked the Parking receipt, because intentions, whilst good, dont fulfil contracts.  Barry Beavis had good intentions, but Parking Eye won in court 

The last resort is court, where a judge might rule in your favour, POPLA won't 

LDast

POPLA have to be educated on minutiae such as the PoFA argument provided above. In discussion with a long serving district judge, they agreed that the NtK as provided fails PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) and full compliance is mandatory if the claimant intends to hold the keeper liable. As it is not fully compliant, the keeper cannot be liable, only the driver.

The driver and the keeper are two separate legal entities in this case and the keeper is not legally obliged to identify the driver. The keeper could also be the driver but the burden of that proof is on the operator. No inference or assumptions can be made and that is backed up by persuasive case law. 

Explain all that to POPLA using the précis provided above and see if the accept it or if not, why not.

Coupon-mad

Grizebeck said:

Tell him its In their contract and handbook it can be cancelledx

Seconded. It's in the manual.  Get your MP to also complain on your behalf.

@Doomswell
You won't be paying this PCN by the way.

One of the many Codes of Practice says something about not printing 'Void Receipts' that mimic and can be mistaken for the payment receipt.

Complain and offer to pay £10 to cover the £3 plus the £2.50 PEye spent on getting your DVLA data, plus the admin/postage of churning out a template PCN.

Doomswell

Thanks for comments, I need to appeal to POPLA soon as my appeal was rejected by Parking Eye on 29/7/24.
I am concerned that although I was not the driver I did not state this in the appeal as I did not know it was relevant, it hadn't occurred to me how fundamentally wrong it is to make someone responsible for someone else's actions, even if my car was involved, so I wrote "I" in the appeal rather than explain I was not the driver.
That might be bad for POPLA, if Parking Eye read the appeal.

Coupon-mad : The withdrawn Private Parking Code of Practice published 7th February 2022 states in Section 6.2.2 Pay and Display It is good practice to ensure the design of a “payment failed” slip is not liable to be mistaken for a parking tariff receipt.

This is not in the (current) Code of Practice version@grumbler

Grizebeck : I now cannot see my messages to the landowner Mr Lindsay Haye on the Butterfly Zoo forum.  He refuses to take any responsibility for the actions of Parking Eye on his behalf.

Grizebeck : Looking at the PCN it seems to comply with POFA Schedule 4 EXCEPT for 92.e.i. There is no invitation to pay.  The closest is on the front of the PCN where it says "Payment to be made within 28 days of the date issued", which is not the same thing ?

Is there anything else I need to throw in ?
Ask for proof of the landowner's permission as per section 7?
Ask for details of the signs?

Thanks again.

Doomswell

typo... This is not in the (current) Code of Practice version 9.