ParkingEye and hired car, advice needed

germantourist · 18 October 2019 at 4:21PM

[FONT=&quot]Thank you so much for running this forum, it already has been a great help. I am writing from Germany, and I am trying to follow the forum's rules and policies, but please excuse if I miss something (and also excuse any shortcomings in my English

).[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Unfortunately we used a parking which is managed by ParkingEye in August :mad:. It was a hire car, PE received our postal address (Germany) from the hire company and sent us the PCN/NTK afterwards.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]What happened was that we stayed in the car park for 48min, and the PCN template claims: "By either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park longer than permitted ... the Parking Charge is now payable to PE by the driver." After 8 weeks we do not have the ticket any more and cannot proof what was payed. Anyway, if the driver remembers correctly the parking was overloaded, so the cars would wait in queues for the next lot. This probably took 10+ min including getting the ticket. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The history is as follows, it might be important:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Date of the Event: Aug 15[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]PCN to keeper (hire Company) issued: Aug 29[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]PCN to us (hirer): issued Sep 21[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]PCN received by us: Oct 08 (!)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Online Appeal (using fits-all template): some days later[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Respective Information from hire company received: Oct 14[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Status: Waiting for feedback, but we expect they will not yet cancel[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]We used mainly the wording from the suggested template in the online appeal, so we did not admit driver name, and we did ask for the parking machine logs. In the online form, when submitting the appeal there is a box one has to tick with something in the sense "I will not bring any additional arguments".[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]While waiting for the answer to the appeal, there are already some questions[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The 14 days which PE needed to issue the PCN (to hire company) after the event, is this already a chance to get it canceled? Unfortunately we learned about this after the appeal because it was in the notification from the hire company which arrived after we did the appeal. The PCN cannot have reached the hire company within 14 days.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Given the letter runtime to Germany there is a chance that the response to the appeal arrives well after 28 days if they send by mail. Can we potentially make use of that?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]We have not mentioned the traffic situation in the parking yet, as we wanted to wait for the logs. Will there be the possibility to bring new arguments at a later stage of the process?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]There is no real urgency in the moment. We will update this thread when we get a response, but if you have any comment before that would be great.[/FONT]

MistyZ · 18 October 2019 at 9:18PM

Hello there.

If the hirer was resident in the UK, then the simple answer would be to wait for the appeal to be rejected (it will be) and the POPLA code which accompanies the rejection. There's a 'formula' for appealing to POPLA re. hire cars and it's usually successful. POPLA is the next stage in the process, it's an (allegedly!) independent appeals service.

If the appeal was made online then the rejection should arrive by email.

However I suspect that the more experienced regulars here may say that Parking Eye are highly unlikely to pursue a hirer who lives outside the UK. I suppose the hire car company might though ...

If and when you need it, there's plenty of information and advice about constructing a hire car POPLA appeal on this forum. Do a search for 'POPLA hire car Parking Eye' and also check the POPLA section of the Newbies' thread. I don't think you'd struggle too much, your English is great.

Umkomaas · 18 October 2019 at 10:14PM

You’re outside UK jurisdiction, so if the hire company have formally passed liability for the charge to the hirer - rather than just sending you a copy of the NtK for you to deal with - and you’ve now received direct ‘Notice to Hirer’ communication from PE, I’d just ignore it, as there seems there’s nowt (old fashioned English for ‘nothing’!) they can do to pursue you.

See what others say.

KeithP · 18 October 2019 at 10:30PM

If the hirer ignores it, won't PE revert to chasing the RK - the hire company?

Following that the hire company are likely to just pay PE and charge the hirer's credit card, won't they?

Perhaps the hirer should take ownership of the issue and if PE are daft enough to try court then as you say Umkomaas, outside UK jurisdiction.

A tricky one. Further opinions needed.

Edna_Basher · 18 October 2019 at 11:03PM

Given that ParkingEye did not issue the original Parking Charge Notice to the lease company until 14 days after the parking event, I expect that this would not have claimed that the keeper could be liable for the charge (what we call a "Golden Ticket" here).

Equally, the ParkingEye's follow-up Parking Charge Notice to you as the hirer should not make any claim that the hirer could be liable. Take a look at the back of the PCN - does it mention Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 anywhere?

If not, you could point this out to the lease company to make it clear that there is no way that ParkingEye could ever hold them liable. This might stop them from panicking and paying in the event that ParkingEye decided to go back to chasing them for payment.

The_Deep · 19 October 2019 at 8:50AM

PE signs leave much to be desired, many judges might find them insufficiently clear to form a contract, read this thread

[FONT=verdana, geneva, lucida, lucida grande, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5972164[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Nine times out of ten of these tickets are scams so consider complaining to your MP, it can cause the scammer extra work.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.[/FONT]

germantourist · 19 October 2019 at 10:35AM

Thank you for the encouraging and useful comments.

By making the online appeal we should already have taken ownership, and hopefully this was the right way to move the hire company out of the loop. Doing nothing I think would have been too risky at this stage, we would have given up completely our ability to influence the process.

The PCN to the hire company (they sent me a copy) and to us (hirer) use the same text without any hint to hirer/keeper liability. It says "By either not purchasing or by remaining in the car park for longer than permitted ... the Parking Charge is now payable to PE by the driver. If you were not the driver at the time, you should tell us the name and current postal address of the driver and pass this notice to them." Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is not mentioned anywhere.

So we wait for the appeal rejection and enter the next level.

Fruitcake · 19 October 2019 at 10:42AM

The_Deep wrote: »

PE signs leave much to be desired, many judges might find them insufficiently clear to form a contract, read this thread

[FONT=verdana, geneva, lucida, lucida grande, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5972164[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Nine times out of ten of these tickets are scams so consider complaining to your MP, it can cause the scammer extra work.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.[/FONT]

Do you really think a German MP, or even Mrs Merkel will be the slightest bit interested in this?

You really need to read the posts on here more carefully.

Fruitcake · 19 October 2019 at 10:46AM

germantourist wrote: »

Thank you for the encouraging and useful comments.

By making the online appeal we should already have taken ownership, and hopefully this was the right way to move the hire company out of the loop. Doing nothing I think would have been too risky at this stage, we would have given up completely our ability to influence the process.

The PCN to the hire company (they sent me a copy) and to us (hirer) use the same text without any hint to hirer/keeper liability. It says "By either not purchasing or by remaining in the car park for longer than permitted ... the Parking Charge is now payable to PE by the driver. If you were not the driver at the time, you should tell us the name and current postal address of the driver and pass this notice to them." Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is not mentioned anywhere.

So we wait for the appeal rejection and enter the next level.

I suggest you write to the hire company anyway to clarify the situation, just to ensue they don't try to pay this and then charge you.
Say something like this: -

They are not liable under the PoFA because they have correctly named you as hirer as per their trade association (the BVRLA) guidelines.
You have appealed and will continue to deal with this.
Parking Lie cannot revert liability back to the hire company.

By the way, your use of the English language puts to shame some of the people who were born and bred in this country.

MistyZ · 19 October 2019 at 12:28PM

Fruitcake wrote: »

IBy the way, your use of the English language puts to shame some of the people who were born and bred in this country.

Puts our flipping education system to shame!

I'm an ex-teacher who nearly burst a blood vessel trying to actually educate our kids. Including those who were charmingly referred to by senior management as 'the rubbish'.

Sorry, massively off-topic mini-rant over.

germantourist · 18 November 2019 at 8:03PM

Hi,

meanwhile we received (as expected) the refusal from PE (Operator's notice of rejection). We made our online appeal on October 9, and their response letter which was sent by mail is dated November 6. This is exactly 28 after our appeal, and we received the letter another week later, after more than 30 days.

The refusal letter was complemented by a POPLA information sheet, so we are now entering the next stage, the POPLA appeal. We intend to bring up the following arguments in the POPLA appeal, can you please have a look and make suggestions what should be changed or added:

PE failed to send the first PCN to the registered keeper (hire company) within 14 days. The parking event occurred on August 15, and the first PCN is dated August 29. Allowing a domestic letter run-time of two days, this first PCN cannot have reached the hire company within 14 days.
PE failed to claim keeper liability in the first PCN . There is no mentioning of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in the first PCN .
After receiving our (the car hirer) contact information, PE send us another (second) PCN . Also from the second PCN the keeper liability is missing, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is not mentioned in this notice either.
PE failed to react on our appeal within an adequate time period. After receiving the PCN, we appealed online on October 9. The response letter in which PE informed us that the appeal is refused is dated November 6, which is exactly 28 days later. We received the letter in the week of November 11, so more than 30 days after our appeal.
PE failed to provide enough information requested in the appeal, e.g. we asked for the log files of the parking machines in order to find out which amount was actually paid. PE did not include the log files in the response.
There was no violation of the parking contract. According to the wording in the refusal letter "insufficient time was paid for on the date of the parking event". The ANPR images show that the car stayed on the parking for 48 minutes. The driver does not recall correctly for which period was paid, and we are still missing the machine log files, but the shortest available period is 30 min. In our opinion a total of 18 minutes of grace periods is not enough. The driver needed probably more than 10 min to produce a ticket considering the following circumstances on that particular parking on August 15:
- when the driver entered the parking there were already many cars waiting for free spaces, and the cars did not move for several minutes
- there are marked parking spaces on the pavement, but there is also a lawn area which other drives used to park. On the lawn area there were spaces available, however, the driver did not dare to park on the lawn because it might be considered as "parking outside the designated areas" and therefore waited longer than others for a free marked space.
- After eventually finding a space, the driver started to read the parking rules carefully (as we are not UK residents and do not have experiences with this kind of things we felt we must read and understand the rules).

We can add the following document to the POPLA appeal:

first PCN sent to the hiring company: for the date and missing keeper liability
second PCN sent to us (the hirer): for the missing keeper liability
acknowledgement mail from PE online system: for the date of the appeal
refusal letter: for the date and the statement of "insufficient time was paid for"

I think that is all for the moment, I will wait some days for feedback and than move on with POPLA.

Many thanks

ParkingEye and hired car, advice needed

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free