Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • ZafarAhmed
    • By ZafarAhmed 25th Nov 17, 7:22 PM
    • 8Posts
    • 1Thanks
    ZafarAhmed
    Parking stating they have sent 1st letter
    • #1
    • 25th Nov 17, 7:22 PM
    Parking stating they have sent 1st letter 25th Nov 17 at 7:22 PM
    Hi All,


    I am hoping someone can help me against a parking eye charge. I will clarify the points below and then hope this will be enough information for someone to help and give me direction.

    • Date of parking event 20/09/17
    • The First and ONLY letter received by me was on the SENT on the 7/10/17.
    • Due to this i sent an appeal to parking eye that there is no keeper liability
    • As notice to keeper was not sent within 14 days and BUT a parking charge notice after 14days.
    Below is the online appeal I made to parking eye.
    Your Notice to Keeper was not received within 14 days so keeper liability does not apply. The only correspondence I have received is a parking charge notice reminder. Which is after 14 days of the date of the event.
    Due to this your 'Notice' fails to comply with the POFA so there can be no keeper liability.
    I have proof that I was 30/40 miles away at around 30mins before the car entered the car park. This proof includes witnesses and geo location/meta data, which can only relate to me. I cannot be the driver of the car.
    You have failed to comply with the requirements of POFA 2012 to hold me, the keeper, liable for any alleged charges for the referenced event. Please contact the driver.
    There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 or cancel the charge. I will only appeal further if you reject my appeal and supply a popla code.

    This charge is based on contract law, and tickets are issued for a breach of the contract. A contract would be formed by parking in the car park and through signage that would communicate the terms and conditions. This cannot apply to me.
    Considering all the above, you have no claim against me so please remove my details from your system and confirm within 21 days that this has been done. Further actions against me can only cause further distress to me, so I have also given notice under Section 10 DPA.


    I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.

    If I am forced to go through any further appeal processes I will be lodging complaints with every business which use the car parking facilities. These complaints will have a copy of this email, and will be sent in every form ( letter, social media etc) possible and will include evidence which I mentioned above to prove that I am being harassed over a baseless contract. As this proof includes pictures of my baby, you can appreciate these are personal and I do not wish to send these.

    They refused this appeal and supplied me with a POPLA code but did not address anything I raised in the appeal, the did not inform me if they had sent a letter within 14days. I made an appeal on the POPLA website, which was basically a version of the above appeal.

    The Notice to Keeper was not received within 14 days so keeper liability does not apply. The only correspondence I have received is a parking charge notice reminder. Which is after 14 days of the date of the event.
    Due to this the ‘Notice' fails to comply with the POFA so there can be no keeper liability.
    I stated this In my response to parking eye and they have not given me proof that a notice to keeper was sent.
    I have proof that I was 30/40 miles away at around 30mins before the car entered the car park. This proof includes witnesses and geo location/meta data, which can only relate to me. This is from photos I was taking on my phone of my and my 10month baby while I was at home on maternity leave. I can not be the driver of the car.

    Parking eye have failed to comply with the requirements of POFA 2012 to hold me, the keeper, liable for any alleged charges for the referenced event. I have advised them to contact the driver.

    I also advised them they must either rely on the POFA 2012 or cancel the charge.

    This charge is based on contract law, and tickets are issued for a breach of the contract. A contract would be formed by parking in the car park and through signage that would communicate the terms and conditions. This can not apply to me as stated I have proof that I was not the driver. I also have asked them send me proof of any correspondence to me within 14 days of the car being parked.

    In their rejection letter to me none of the above was address at all.

    On 22/11/17 I received an email from POPLA, stating parking eye has loaded evidence and I have 7 days to provide comments regarding the evidence they have supplied.
    Parking Eye Ltd has now uploaded its evidence via our portal. This is now available for you to view by clicking here.

    You have seven days from the date of this correspondence to provide comments on the evidence uploaded by Parking Eye Ltd.


    Please note that these comments must relate to the grounds of appeal you submitted when first lodging your appeal with POPLA, we do not accept new grounds of appeal at this stage.

    In the evidence supplied they have the following;

    History 20/09/2017
    Date of event
    System check/manual check identified breach of terms and conditions, prior to DVLA request
    27/09/2017
    Request queued to DVLA for keeper details
    28/09/2017
    DVLA response received - Success
    28/09/2017
    Parking Charge Letter Issued - Letter1 - Ltr01-217
    07/10/2017
    Parking Charge Letter Issued - Letter2 - Ltr02-217
    12/10/2017
    26/10/2017
    26/10/2017
    Letter Issued - Website Appeal Response
    Processed website appeal received from motorist, please see Section E
    Check undertaken to locate vehicle registration on paid parking system (Evidence G)
    26/10/2017
    Letter Issued - Holding Response
    31/10/2017
    Letter Issued - Unsuccessful POPLA PP Not Purchased with FAQs


    This shows and has a copy of a letter which they state was sent on 28/09/17, within the 14days of the parking event. I never received this letter. They do not have any proof they sent this letter to me.
    It also states the following

    Please be advised the date of the Parking Event was 20/09/2017 and the Parking Charge Notice was issued on 28/09/2017, therefore we believe that we have issued the Parking Charge Notice in accordance with Paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (2012).
    Postage is at the behest of the postal service and therefore any delays are outside of ParkingEye’s control.

    I am not sure how to proceed now. Just to summarise the facts above.
    • Date of parking event 20/09/17
    • The First and ONLY letter received by me was on the SENT on the 7/10/17.
    • Due to this i sent an appeal to parking eye that there is no keeper liability
    • As notice to keeper was not sent within 14 days and BUT a parking charge notice after 14days.
    • In the POPLA evidence supplied by Parking eye they show they DID send a letter with 14days.
    • This letter is dated 28/09/17.
    • They say its delays or not receiving he first letter is outside of their control.
    • There was no delay I never got this letter.
    • I was not the driver.
    • I have photo’s from my phone which has geo location of me taking picture of my baby while I was at home on maternity leave.

    I hoping someone can help me respond to the evidence sent my Parking eye to POPLA.
    If any other information is need please let me know.

    I have till this Wednesday to respond (29/11/17) i appericate not much time .
    Thank you

    Sameena
Page 1
    • HeatonGuy
    • By HeatonGuy 25th Nov 17, 7:42 PM
    • 79 Posts
    • 47 Thanks
    HeatonGuy
    • #2
    • 25th Nov 17, 7:42 PM
    • #2
    • 25th Nov 17, 7:42 PM
    A letter sent is deemed served unless the contrary is proved. But, they need to prove it was, in fact sent.

    So ask them for the record from their mail provider that the letter was, in fact, correctly stamped, addressed and posted on 28/09/2017 (before close of business), and for the tracking from the same source to show when it was received by Royal Mail.

    ParkingEye do not post their own letters, they use a fulfilment house to do so, and they normally use the "three day" service which means a letter dated 29th will be produced on 30th and posted then. This is equivalent to Second Class mail. If it's second class, that takes it past POFA service requirements of two WORKING days.

    Remember, the onus of proof falls upon them, so question this, and ask them to PROVE posting, and in any case, rebut receipt.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 25th Nov 17, 10:26 PM
    • 2,471 Posts
    • 3,018 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    • #3
    • 25th Nov 17, 10:26 PM
    • #3
    • 25th Nov 17, 10:26 PM
    Exactly as above

    They cannot use the excuse that the Royal Mail is outside their control. Pofa requires that the notice is served within the deadline, not that it is sent within the deadline.
    • ZafarAhmed
    • By ZafarAhmed 26th Nov 17, 1:55 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    ZafarAhmed
    • #4
    • 26th Nov 17, 1:55 PM
    • #4
    • 26th Nov 17, 1:55 PM
    thank you heatonguy and nosferatu.


    I just to make sure i am doing the right thing. As you can see from my intially appeal i did not raise anything else apart from the fact the NTK was not sent within 14 days.


    If they have proof that this was sent within the deadline, how would i move forward from that point?


    Also the letter is dated 28/09/17, so if they had acutally posted that the next day which would be friday, the earliest it would of reached me would of been monday right but if it was a 3 day service that would mean it would have not got to me before the 14days were up anyway?


    considering the above should i mention my initally appeal was on the basis i only got one letter dated 7/10/17 and i now would like to make further considerations regarding appealing and if so what should i do these at.


    The reason i would say i would want to make further consideration would be again PE did not inform me until the POPLA appeal was processed that they had SENT a letter within the first 14days.


    I intially thought this would be an easy appeal to win as i honeslty had only recieved one letter, dated outside the 14days.


    i am now worried that i might lost this and that is the reason PE have taken this, this far .


    again thank you for all your help
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 26th Nov 17, 7:37 PM
    • 2,471 Posts
    • 3,018 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    • #5
    • 26th Nov 17, 7:37 PM
    • #5
    • 26th Nov 17, 7:37 PM
    You cannot add new points of appeal

    You strong,y need to remind popla that pe have not proven when the letter was sent, nor when it entered the normal course of post and not their bulk carrier. There is only presumption of service once thy have shown they sent the documents, and they have not done so. A computer printout merely asserting otherwise is not proof of anything.
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 28th Nov 17, 6:41 PM
    • 1,026 Posts
    • 1,977 Thanks
    Johnersh
    • #6
    • 28th Nov 17, 6:41 PM
    • #6
    • 28th Nov 17, 6:41 PM
    The Court invented the Certificate of Service for this eventuality. It contains a statement of truth and it should be signed and verified by a named individual. Simple.
    • logician
    • By logician 28th Nov 17, 6:55 PM
    • 194 Posts
    • 76 Thanks
    logician
    • #7
    • 28th Nov 17, 6:55 PM
    • #7
    • 28th Nov 17, 6:55 PM
    The Court invented the Certificate of Service for this eventuality. It contains a statement of truth and it should be signed and verified by a named individual. Simple.
    Originally posted by Johnersh
    Great - except this is not at court yet this is a POPLA evidence pack the OP is dealing with
    • logician
    • By logician 28th Nov 17, 7:01 PM
    • 194 Posts
    • 76 Thanks
    logician
    • #8
    • 28th Nov 17, 7:01 PM
    • #8
    • 28th Nov 17, 7:01 PM
    [FONT=Times New Roman]


    In the evidence supplied they have the following;

    History 20/09/2017
    Date of event
    System check/manual check identified breach of terms and conditions, prior to DVLA request
    27/09/2017
    Request queued to DVLA for keeper details
    28/09/2017
    DVLA response received - Success
    28/09/2017
    Parking Charge Letter Issued - Letter1 - Ltr01-217
    07/10/2017

    Parking Charge Letter Issued - Letter2 - Ltr02-217
    12/10/2017
    26/10/2017
    26/10/2017
    Letter Issued - Website Appeal Response
    Processed website appeal received from motorist, please see Section E
    Check undertaken to locate vehicle registration on paid parking system (Evidence G)
    26/10/2017
    Letter Issued - Holding Response
    31/10/2017
    Letter Issued - Unsuccessful POPLA PP Not Purchased with FAQs




    [B][FONT=Calibri]Please be advised the date of the Parking Event was 20/09/2017 and the Parking Charge Notice was issued on 28/09/2017, t

    Sameena
    Originally posted by ZafarAhmed
    Contradictory statements in the list history to their written statement.

    According to that the first letter was indeed issue 07/10 and they got the DVLA keeper details back on 28/9
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 28th Nov 17, 7:07 PM
    • 1,026 Posts
    • 1,977 Thanks
    Johnersh
    • #9
    • 28th Nov 17, 7:07 PM
    • #9
    • 28th Nov 17, 7:07 PM
    Great - except this is not at court yet this is a POPLA evidence pack the OP is dealing with
    Err yes. But that doesn't mean that they can't knock together the form do a declaration and let that be the end of it. There are no rules as to when it can be used, just rules relating to when it definitely should.

    More unrealistic is expecting a commercial entity sending volume post to queue at a post office counter to get a receipt for individual items of mail in case a mail provider who they pay delivers late or someone challenges them.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 28th Nov 17, 7:12 PM
    • 7,333 Posts
    • 9,773 Thanks
    beamerguy
    ZafarAhmed

    For your safety and security on this forum, NEVER
    respond to a PM (private message) from a member
    with less than 1000 posts.

    If you do, it's at your own peril
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 28th Nov 17, 8:13 PM
    • 1,026 Posts
    • 1,977 Thanks
    Johnersh
    Or, to put it another way:

    Beamerguy may drive a Mercedes
    Logician may not always be logical
    CouponMad may or may not collect coupons; and
    the HeatOnGuy may not be qualified to fix your boiler.

    You get the point. It's an open forum. Take what advice you will, make sure you're happy with it before you take any decisions and the very best of luck to you...
    • ZafarAhmed
    • By ZafarAhmed 29th Nov 17, 11:58 AM
    • 8 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    ZafarAhmed
    Thanks eveyone for you comments.


    let you know what the responce is from Popla/PE.
    • ZafarAhmed
    • By ZafarAhmed 16th Dec 17, 7:10 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    ZafarAhmed
    Popla decision
    I am hoping someone can help me and give me some advise on what I should do next?

    I am utterly disgusted that a simple request for proof of postage was deemed by popla as something parkingeye did not need prove.

    How can they then state they have in effect kept within in legal requirement to post the letter within required time, if they do not need to prove postage!!!

    DecisionUnsuccessful
    Assessor NameSophie Taylor
    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to “either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted".

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant’s case is that the notice to keeper served does not comply with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, as it was not given in the relevant period of 14 days. She says that she has proof of being 30 or 40 miles away, however she has not provided such evidence to POPLA. The appellant states that the charge has been issued as a breach of contract, however as she did not drive, she is not liable for a breach of contract.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    As the appellant has not declared she was the driver of the vehicle, I must consider whether the conditions of PoFA were met. After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that, the appellant has been identified as the driver of the vehicle in question at the time of the relevant parking event. The operator is therefore pursuing the appellant as the registered keeper of the vehicle in this instance. Under Section 9, Paragraph 4 of PoFA, it states: “The notice must be given by— (a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or (b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period. (5)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. (6)A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales”. The operator has provided a copy of the original PCN, issued on 28 September 2017, which states that the contravention has occurred on the 20 September 2017. Following the guidance given in PoFA, this would be presumed to be delivered on 2 October 2017. This is within the relevant period outlined in PoFA. After reviewing the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA I am satisfied that it is compliant with the requirements in order to transfer liability. As such, the keeper is now liable for the charge. I note the appellant states she did not receive the notice, however the operator cannot be held liable for any loss of mail due to the postal service. I also recognise her comments that she requires proof of postage amongst other requests, however for the purpose of this appeal, the information provided is sufficient to demonstrate the operator has complied with PoFA. When entering onto a private car park, the motorist forms a contract with the operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage at the site sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. Therefore, upon entry to the car park, it is the duty of the motorist to review the terms and conditions, and comply with them, when deciding to park. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage that states, “Parking Tariffs Mon – Sun 6am – 6pm… Failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £85”. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle, entering the car park at 14:25, and exiting at 14:39, totalling a stay of 14 minutes. The operator has provided evidence to demonstrate that no payment was made for the vehicle to park for this period. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. Upon consideration of the evidence, the driver failed to pay the appropriate tariff, and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. The operator has complied with PoFA, and the keeper is now liable for the charge. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Dec 17, 7:38 PM
    • 57,449 Posts
    • 71,030 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Either pay them £85 or wait for them to sue you and defend it on grace periods/vehicle not in fact parked. Maybe unclear signs, if it was dark. The things you should have argued in the POPLA appeal instead of relying on a doomed single point.

    I am utterly disgusted that a simple request for proof of postage was deemed by popla as something parkingeye did not need prove.
    They don't. We could have told you that.

    You could see the letter you got was called a Reminder, so it was obvious that PE would produce an earlier letter. This POPLA appeal was never going to be won on POFA failure because PPCs don't have to prove posting, and never have had to.

    If you decide to see if they will sue (there are car parks where they don't, e.g. Aldi) then you merely risk paying around double, all told, if you lost.

    Not a huge risk & no CCJ as long as you don't miss or ignore any court letters, direction, etc. in 2018.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • ZafarAhmed
    • By ZafarAhmed 16th Dec 17, 8:34 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    ZafarAhmed
    1) it was not me driving hence why I did not argue any other point. It was my car but not me driving.

    2) I honestly had not received the first letter. the reminder was the only letter I got.

    3) asking for proof of postage is something I was asking for as I am adamant I have not received the first letter within the 14days/at all.

    4) my stance was based on 100% the truth, I didn’t want to throw any other arguments in which tbh wouldn’t not be true.

    Again asking for proof of postage seems like a simple request? If I say I sent you a letter, would I at least need to prove I sent the letter? Under any legal precedent that is the lest that is what is required.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Dec 17, 8:46 PM
    • 57,449 Posts
    • 71,030 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    it was not me driving hence why I did not argue any other point. It was my car but not me driving.
    But it was never going to win.

    Not being the driver is NOT a defence or an appeal with any chance of success, if the PPC can show a first postal PCN dated within the relevant period, that is compliant (and PE 'dated on-time' ones, are). As you could see for yourself, the first letter wasn't the PCN but was a 'Reminder'. It was obvious PE would say 'here's the one we sent earlier'.

    I didn!!!8217;t want to throw any other arguments in which tbh wouldn!!!8217;t not be true.
    You will have to at a hearing (no idea why you say the other arguments wouldn't be true, they ARE true and they are winning templates as advised in the NEWBIES thread).

    You can't win using your argument. Please listen to what I am saying.


    Again asking for proof of postage seems like a simple request? If I say I sent you a letter, would I at least need to prove I sent the letter? Under any legal precedent that is the lest that is what is required.
    Nope, not in English law:

    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/30/section/7

    The Interpretation Act 1978:

    7 References to service by post.
    Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression !!!8220;serve!!!8221; or the expression !!!8220;give!!!8221; or !!!8220;send!!!8221; or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.
    And the BPA do not require AOS members to keep proof of posting.

    Decide now whether to pay the £85 (unless it's Aldi or somewhere that PE don't sue over) and if you do not pay, you need to open your eyes as to the real defence you might have...possibly.

    If people could safely be sure to win appeals on single points, the NEWBIES thread would say so. It doesn't.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 16-12-2017 at 8:49 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Castle
    • By Castle 16th Dec 17, 9:09 PM
    • 1,704 Posts
    • 2,301 Thanks
    Castle
    You can't win using your argument. Please listen to what I am saying.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    The First-Tier Tribunal Tax Chamber may disagree with that:-
    http://www.civillitigationbrief.com/2016/05/20/proving-things-19-prove-service-or-you-could-be-caught-out/
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Dec 17, 9:11 PM
    • 57,449 Posts
    • 71,030 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Fair point, interesting link.

    But this OP was never going to win at POPLA, and I am not sure they will in court.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • ZafarAhmed
    • By ZafarAhmed 16th Dec 17, 9:32 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    ZafarAhmed
    Thank you both for your help.

    But considering the post regarding postage.

    Also they only showed a print out when they generated the letter not when they posted it.

    Or when they give it to there bulk mail service, which is still not !!!8216;posted!!!8217;.

    A letter is regarded as "posted" only when it is in the possession of the Post Office; this was established in the case of Re London & Northern Bank [1900] 1 Ch 220.

    What I am asking is how come a body which is meant to resolves disputes does not follow the law?

    Can I use this as an argument in court, I am more then willing to go to court considering how they decided not to even answer simple questions regarding when they actually posted the letter.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Dec 17, 10:02 PM
    • 57,449 Posts
    • 71,030 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    What I am asking is how come a body which is meant to resolves disputes does not follow the law?
    It does, the Interpretation Act.

    Already told you that you can use various arguments in court but DON'T rely on that one alone (again).
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

88Posts Today

1,202Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • It's the start of mini MSE's half term. In order to be the best daddy possible, Im stopping work and going off line? https://t.co/kwjvtd75YU

  • RT @shellsince1982: @MartinSLewis thanx to your email I have just saved myself £222 by taking a SIM only deal for £7.50 a month and keeping?

  • Today's Friday twitter poll: An important question, building on yesterday's important discussions: Which is the best bit of the pizza...

  • Follow Martin