Parking Eye parking charge notice

[NeedingHelp1]

my partner received aparking charge noticefrom parking eye.

 

his daughter had been working for a local retailer and her car had broken down in their service yard.

the following day she took his car to work,

left his car in the service yard she uses,

while he took her car off to be repaired

 

no more than 2 hours. she is authorised to park there without a permit

despite it being permit holders only on signage, however,

 

he received a parking charge notice from parking eye.

we have explained to them twice now that she was authorised to park there,

given them her name and registration,

but obviously his reg number wouldnt have been on any white lists

as she was borrowing it for a few hours.

 

parking eye have rejected the appeal and so have popla.

 

The retailer has contacted parking eye and been told it will cost £60 to cancel the parking charge notice,

and the owners of the service yard are now trying to deal with it too,

but think they will get the same response.

 

we are really worried about this as my guy has only just got back into employment after 5 mths out of work,

so money is beyond tight for him and he has massive debts.

 

As popla has now has unbelievably rejected the appeal,

we are guessing that threatening with court is next,

 

 

is there anything that we can do to not pay for this parking charge notice

or the cancellation of the parking charge notice,

 

 

that so obviously should have been cancelled long before it got to popla.

 

 

thanks

[silverfox1961]

Hi and welcome to CAG

 

Before we get into details we need more from you.

 

Can you answer the questions in this post.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?462118-Have-you-received-a-Parking-Ticket&p=4883055&viewfull=1#post4883055

 

Then copy/paste the answers here

[NeedingHelp1]

1 Date of the infringement 7th nov 2015

 

2 Date on the NTK - whats ntk?

 

3 Date received - dont have original letter here, i only have the 3rd letter from them saying appeal unsuccessful dated 10 feb

 

4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? no idea, is this even relevant at this stage?

 

5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? yes they sent photos of the vehicle, and to popla sent photos of signage - it was all appealed against

 

6 Have you appealed? yes

 

Have you had a response? yes - see my post

 

 

7 Who is the parking company? parking eye

 

were these answers even necessary, the post is self explanatory

[NeedingHelp1]

i only have the parking eye appeal unsuccessful letter here, not the original letter from them as already stated

[NeedingHelp1]

my god, im a lay person, not a professional, as far as im concerned its a fine. whatever it is, i just want a response to my query

[dx100uk]

well if you used that word in your letters no wonder they are going for it.

 

have you taken pictures of the signs and confirmed they are compliant

and they have planning permission from the council for them?

 

and PE have permission from the land owners to issue claims on their behalf?

[NeedingHelp1]

i havent been back to the site, i dont live nearby and my daughter doesnt work for that company any more. popla obviously accepted their photos and ignored our defence against those photos, as well as ignored us by siding with them and rejecting our appeal.

 

i have now emailed the landowners, st modwen, and awaiting a reply, and the security office are also contacting PE, but they think they will be told it will cost the £60 to cancel it, just like her ex-employers were told.

 

please bear in mind, it is past appeals stage now

[dx100uk]

costs nothing to cancel it

simply a money making exercise.

 

 

pers i'd sit on it until/unless a claimform arrives.

 

 

what about council planning permission for any signs?

 

 

who actually employed PE? do you know?

[NeedingHelp1]

surely the next stage from PE is notice of court action, now that POPLA appeal failed?

 

St Modwen own the land, so we've written to them on the assumption they employ PE.

 

Not dealt with the council

 

we know PE asking for money to cancel is one of their tactics to get money out of this, but how do we get it cancelled without the charge?

[honeybee13]

Hello there.

 

You might find it helpful to read a few Parking Eye threads here, to see how they operate. They don't do court very often, and they don't tend to win, if memory serves. Even if they threaten court, it may not go all the way.

 

The process may seem a little painstaking to you, but the guys here have worked out how to use the system against people like PE. That's why we go into detail.

 

I hope that explains a bit more.

 

HB

[NeedingHelp1]

thanks but i have looked at lots of PE stuff online, but none are specific to our situation, we didnt overstay in a car park or flout parking charges, etc., and it has now gone past the POPLA point.

 

it shouldve been black and white, someone had parked there who was authorised to do so, albeit not in their own vehicle that day, due to their own vehicle being off the road,

 

they were given her name, but still chase me, i took it right thru the appeal process and still lost. now after the company who gave permission to park there have contacted them, theyre asking for £60 to cancel the notice.

Edited April 13, 2016 by honeybee13
Paras.

[ericsbrother]

PE are basically trying it on and relying on your ignorance as to what this is really about and that is they have no right to demand any money from your daughter or the person who loaned her a car for a day. This is why they are asking for £60, because they know they are entitled to nothing otherwise they wouldnt make such an offer.

 

Your daughter and St Mowlwm have an arrangement that gives her superiority of contract so PE cannot charge her. End of.story

 

It would be useful if you could post up the appeal and the POPLA response so we can see what they actually considered. Did POPLA send your daughter any of the evidence that PE supplied to them for the appeal decision? If not please tell us what was sent as part of the appeals pack as it looks like the new service falls very short of what should happen.

 

What to do next? if you cannot post up the info requested then wait until they make their next demand and then send a letter stating that she has superioroty of contract and therefore they cannot claim a brach of contract as one has not been be formed.

Edited April 13, 2016 by honeybee13
Paras.

[NeedingHelp1]

st modwens are the land owners, not her employer (or rather ex-employer as she has now moved elsewhere). she worked for one of the retail units near the service yard. it is my vehicle that she borrowed, so its me thats being chased for the money and me who failed at appeals.

 

with regard to popla, i didnt see poplas response on their website, only that it was rejected. where do i see this information? yes we saw all of PEs evidence to popla, and responded to it accordingly

 

what does superiority of contract mean?

 

found all the info on poplas page as follows:

 

DecisionUnsuccessful

Assessor NameLinsdey Rogers

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator states that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the basis that the appellant did not gain the appropriate permit or authorisation to park at the site

 

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant states that their daughter drove their vehicle on the day in question because theirs had broken down.

The appellant explains that their daughter is an employee on site and has authorisation to park at the site in question.

 

Assessor supporting rational for decision

 

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 contravention

 

The operator is therefore pursuing the appellant as the registered keeper of the vehicle in this instance.

 

For the operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle,

to the registered keeper of the vehicle,

the regulations laid out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012) must be adhered to.

 

The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant.

As the driver of the vehicles has not been identified,

the notice to keeper will need to comply with section 9 of PoFA 2012.

 

I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012

and I am satisfied that it is compliant The operator states that it issued the PCN

on the basis that the appellant did not gain the appropriate permit or authorisation to park at the site.

 

The operator has provided photographic evidence of the vehicle in question entering the Ainley Road service yard car park on 7 November 2015, at 9.53am and exiting at 11.46am.

A total stay of one hour and 52 minutes.

 

Additionally, the operator has provided evidence of an authorisation search for vehicle registration XXXXXXXX.

The evidence shows this vehicle was not authorised at the site on the day in question.

 

The appellant states that their daughter drove their vehicle on the day in question because theirs had broken down.

 

The appellant explains that their daughter is an employee on site and has authorisation to park at the site in question

 

. While I note that the appellant has provided a cover letter from their daughter

they have failed to submit sufficient evidence to demonstrate that their daughter had a valid permit.

 

The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage at the site in question.

The signage states, “Permit holders only.

 

This area is for the use of service vehicles and permit holders only.

Failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a parking charge of £70.”

Section 18 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice explains that signs

‘must be conspicuous and legible and written intelligible language,

so that they are easy to see, read and understand’.

 

I consider the photographic evidence to show that the Operator met the minimum standards set by the BPA.

While I acknowledge the appellant’s comments, they have failed to provide sufficient evidence

to demonstrate that their daughter had a valid permit.

 

Our remit is to consider whether a driver has complied with the terms and conditions of the car park.

I consider the signage at the site sufficient for the appellant to have read

and understood the terms and conditions of parking.

 

As such, from the evidence provided to me I can only conclude that the appellant

has not adhered to the terms and conditions set out at the site.

 

Therefore, I consider that the operator has issued the PCN correctly.

[ericsbrother]

utter rubbish. Your daughter identified herself as the driver and that is the end of the matter, PE cannot chase the keeper. She doesnt have to adhere to the terms as it is not for them to dictate terms to peopel who have the RIGHT to be there.

 

I would be asking them how they fail to understand supremacy of contract and what precedent they care to offer to override this right.

[NeedingHelp1]

can i add,

that following PE sending their proof,

we resubmitted our response and included in that informed them that her ex-employers had contacted PE

and they wanted to charge to cancel and asked for an email address or link to summit a copy of that email,

as there was insufficient space to do so in our response.

 

that request was ignored totally,

as we couldve shown that they had tried to deal with it on our behalf.

 

utter rubbish. Your daughter identified herself as the driver and that is the end of the matter, PE cannot chase the keeper. She doesnt have to adhere to the terms as it is not for them to dictate terms to peopel who have the RIGHT to be there.

 

I would be asking them how they fail to understand supremacy of contract and what precedent they care to offer to override this right.

 

unfortunately we have no right of recourse with popla now,

and they have no complaints procedure other than directing you to CAB

who cant do anything about advising on parking issues, and the court.

 

they are the top of the tree, no one governs them. so how do we do as youve mentioned?

 

ps. we dont understand any of the legal jargon in poplas outcome, it may as well be double dutch to us with regard to referring to rules etc

[ericsbrother]

keep this all safe,

it will help in the long run but Ombudsman Services ltd arent an honest broker

so other than making a formal complaint and reiterating the obvious facts

she wont get anywhere as they will refuse to reconsider their decision.

 

 

As no loss has been made your daughter cannot consider further action

but will have the evidence to stop them from making a successful claim against her.

 

PE are just greedy and dishonest

[NeedingHelp1]

it isnt her they're making the claim against, its me.

so what am i meant to do now,

as they will now try to take me to court

 

 

and i cannot risk being taken to court, im not in any financial position to lose money,

thru any part of this

 

ps. our proof to them that her car had indeed broken down was asking that PE check their camera to see that her own vehicle had been parked there overnight.

 

 

we obviously dont have any other proof that she took my car,

 

 

surely our word should've been enough,

and informing them of her employer and her own car reg no.

[dx100uk]

doesn't say will anything anywhere

read the letter properly

 

 

dx

[NeedingHelp1]

doesn't say will anything anywhere

read the letter properly

 

 

dx

 

 

sorry i dont understand what you mean

[dx100uk]

you keep saying WILL take you to court

if you go read whatever rubbish PE are saying

you'll see they never use the word will anywhere

may,might, but , if

never will.

 

and anyway

its well known PE ANPR system is crap as well.

[NeedingHelp1]

I have read a lot of things in the past few weeks about PE and one thing is coming up and that is that they do take people to court and have won in a lot of cases. so we cant just live in hope that they stop responding or dont take to court, as its highly likely they will.

 

their photos clearly show my car entering and leaving, so i cant just have a defence that their cameras are crap. weve never disputed the car was there, just who was driving it and their authority to park there

 

just looking at the last letter they sent us rejecting our appeal and advising us to go to popla, also mentions the ombudsman-services, but that they dont participate in their dispute resolution. are we able to go to them, and if so, under which section on their website? thanks

[Sidewinder]

Just skim reading the thread, so apologies if I have missed something obvious, but it seems that you have something in writing which states that PE are prepared to cancel the charge? But that they want £60 for doing so? You also have evidence from the business on whose behalf PE operate the car park stating that the vehicle was parked with their permission?

 

Based purely on that evidence PE could never succeed with a court claim. I would sit back and wait for the inevitable debt collector/solicitor letters and then invite them to issue a claim which is bound to fail and where you will counterclaim for costs.

[NeedingHelp1]

We have an email from the company she worked for, who contacted PE and were told by PE they would cancel it but theres a charge of £60. Something we mentioned in our response to POPLA, but it obv made no difference.

 

We dont have evidence from the landowner that she had permission to park there.

The company she worked for said

'Unfortunately as your daughter has not followed the procedure in place to register the vehicle, albeit temporarily, this is why the charge has been incurred.'

 

 

however, she didnt know their procedure as she was only training at that shop and not permanently based there.

 

 

we are currently awaiting a reply back from the security office for that service yard,

who are contacting PE on our behalf, although they think they may get the same response,

ie. wanting to charge to cancel.

 

 

We have emailed the owners of the land, but not had any response yet, if I dont hear tomorrow, i will ring them.

 

if they put it in the hands of a debt collection agency, what then?

[dx100uk]

if they put it in the hands of a debt collection agency, what then?

 

 

you ignore them

a dca is not a bailiff

and has

no such legal powers.

[Sidewinder]

As DX says, debt collectors you ignore as they can do nothing but threaten. The only time to act is if you receive something headed as a 'Letter Before Claim'. At that stage you could still ignore it - they may do nothing but issue further threats, but PE do issue claims like confetti - or you could write a strongly worded rebuttal and tell them in no uncertain terms that any claim will be vigorously defended on the grounds that PE had proof of permission to park and indeed agreed to cancel the charge, but only on condition that you paid them to do so.