PE PCN Letter Of Claim - entering retail car park without permission' - London Southend Airport

[WoodDD]

Sure, here is the authorisation evidence provided by PE.

 

 

pe.pdf

[lookinforinfo]

Parking Eye has history with dodgy dossiers.

 

Would an assistant surveyor have the authority to legally sign such a document and why the reticence in revealing the landowner's name.

 

There is no mention of any financial arrangements so very much an abridged document.

 

Virtually worthless as proof let alone strict proof.

 

The only  2[1]   I can find on POFA is in Schedule 4 and relates to relevant land in Wales!

[I am trying to add [b] to the 2[1] but it is not letting me.]

 

[dx100uk]

Thread tidied

Post 25 jpg images removed too

[WoodDD]

Here is the evidence provide by PE.

 

I have 3 days left to comments on them. Please can anyone help?

 

Thanks

Rules and Conditions - PE2.pdf

 

Please could anyone advise the following comments on the evidence provided by PE?

 

[dx100uk]

wheres that keep coming from.

 

who has written that?

what is it relation too?

 

[WoodDD]

The comments are required by POPLA appealing process after PE has provided their evidence attached on #29.

 

#30 was my draft reply to POPLA.

 

Please provide your comments on the operator evidence.

You have 7 days from the operator evidence submission date - 01/10/2019. You will not have opportunity to edit or add further detail once you have submitted your comments.

Edited October 3, 2019 by WoodDD

[WoodDD]

Just received my POPLA decision -- Unsuccessful !

 

Much gutted, what should I do now?

 

Here is the decision:

 

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

XXXXXX

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator states that the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site without the appropriate permit or authorisation. It has issued a parking charge notice (PCN) for £100 as a result.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant states that he is not liable for the charge as the registered keeper of the vehicle. He states that the operator did not allow the relevant grace periods. He states that the operator does not have relevant authority from the landowner to operate on site. He states that the images on the PCN are not compliant with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. He states that no contract was formed between the driver and the operator. The appellant has provided a document in which he elaborates on the above grounds in detail, along with a photograph of the PCN and a copy of the operator’s letter rejecting his original appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The appellant is the registered keeper of the vehicle. The driver of the vehicle on the date in question has not been identified. The operator is therefore pursuing the appellant for the charge as the registered keeper in line with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. I am satisfied from the evidence provided that the operator has adhered to the Act and I will therefore consider the appellant’s liability for the charge as the registered keeper. The operator has provided photographs of the appellant’s vehicle taken by its automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras. These photographs show the vehicle entering the site at 16:36 and leaving the site at 16:42. It is clear that the vehicle remained on site for a period of six minutes. The operator has provided photographs of the signs installed on the site and a site map showing where on site each sign is located. Signage clearly states: “Permit Holders & Service Vehicles Only … This area is for the use of service vehicles & permit holders only … Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £100”. The signs make the terms of parking on the site clear, are placed in such a way that a motorist would see the signs when parking and are in line with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. The operator has provided evidence to show that a search for the appellant’s vehicle has been carried out against the list of vehicles for which a valid permit was held on the date in question. The appellant’s vehicle does not appear on this list. The appellant states that he is not liable for the charge as the registered keeper of the vehicle. As detailed above, I am satisfied from the evidence that the operator is entitled to pursue the appellant for payment of the charge as the registered keeper of the vehicle in line with relevant legislation. The appellant states that the operator did not allow the relevant grace periods. I accept that on entering a site, a driver must be allowed a reasonable grace period to read and understand the terms and decide whether to park. The evidence shows that the driver remained on site for six minutes which, given the clarity of the signage on site and the site’s relatively small size, I am not satisfied was reasonable. The appellant states that the operator does not have relevant authority from the landowner to operate on site. The operator’s evidence includes a statement signed on behalf of the landowner to confirm that the operator is contracted to operate on site. The appellant states that the images on the PCN are not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice. The specific section of the Code to which the appellant refers states that images “must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered.” Having reviewed the images on the PCN, I am satisfied that they meet these requirements. The appellant states that no contract was formed between the driver and the operator. As detailed above, I am satisfied that signage on site made the terms sufficiently clear. I am therefore satisfied that a contract was formed between the driver and the operator by way of the signs on site. I am satisfied from the evidence both that the terms of the site were made clear and that the driver breached the terms by parking without a permit or authorisation. I am therefore satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly and I must refuse this appeal.

[FTMDave]

Don't be too disappointed, POPLA can only decide on a very limited remit, and they can't force you to pay.

 

The best thing is to do absolutely nothing.  Even when the inevitable stupid threatening letters arrive.  But come back here if you get a proper legal Letter Before Claim/Action.

[WoodDD]

Here is the reply from POPLA after I complained to its chief assessor -- completely rubbish!

 

---

 

Your complaint about POPLA

 

Thank you for your email, which was passed to me by the POPLA team as I am responsible for responding to complaints.

 

I note from your correspondence that you are unhappy with the decision reached by the assessor in your appeal against Parking Eye.

 

 

POPLA is an impartial and independent appeals service and we do not act either for the parking operator or the appellant. It is important to explain that it is not our remit to source evidence and documents from either party in support of their submission and our decisions are based on the evidence received from both parties at the time of the appeal. We cannot consider further evidence after the appeal has been completed.

 

You have advised that the decision issued to you on 29 October 2019 does not address the crucial points of your rebuttal.

 

You have reiterated your original grounds of appeal. For clarity, I have addressed each point as follows.

 

Regarding grace periods.

 

While section 13 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice stipulates that a minimum grace period should be allowed, the grace period is only applicable in car parks are required. In this car park, the entrance signs states that the site is for permit holders and service vehicles only, as such, a grace period is not applicable in this instance. You would have been aware that you did not have a permit on entering the site and I am satisfied that the assessor is correct in determining that the six minutes that you were on the site was not a reasonable period.

 

You have advised that there is no evidence of landowner authority and have provided a quote from another POPLA decision.

 

POPLA deals with appeals on a case by case basis and as such, any external factors such as other similar parking contraventions or appeals have no impact on our decision making.

 

I have reviewed the assessor’s comments relating to this ground of appeal and also the document provided by the operator and I am satisfied that the assessor has correctly stated that the operator has the relevant authority to issue PCN’s on this site.

 

You advise that no contract was formed between the driver and the operator.

 

The assessor has advised that the signage on the site makes the terms and conditions of the car park clear which, after reviewing the images of the signs provided, I agree with. By choosing to remain on the site, you have accepted the terms and conditions of this contract and by remaining on site for six minutes without a permit, the terms and conditions were breached.

 

After reviewing the assessor’s decision, I am satisfied that the outcome reached is correct As POPLA is a one-stage process, there is no opportunity for you to appeal the decision.

 

As our involvement in your appeal has now concluded you may wish to pursue matters further. For independent legal advice, please contact Citizens Advice at: www.citizensadvice.org.uk or call 0345 404 05 06 (English) or 0345 404 0505 (Welsh).

 

In closing, I am sorry that your experience of using our service has not been positive. We have reached the end of our process and my response now concludes our complaints procedure. I trust you will appreciate that there will be no further review of your complaint and it will not be appropriate for us to respond to any further correspondence on this matter.

 

Yours sincerely

Paul Garrity

POPLA Complaints Team

[ericsbrother]

utter twaddle and ignores the BEAVIS decision, which they are not entitled to do.

Still as the appeal was always going to be a waste of time becasue of the limited remt of POPLA

 

Dont lose any sleep over this, the law hans t chaanged just because they have ignored it

[WoodDD]

@BearLake1

 

I have a similar PCN from the same place. I've just received 'Letter Before Claim' today. I wonder if you are able to share your reply to CVS? Did you send your reply by email or mail?

 

Thanks!

Edited November 21, 2019 by WoodDD

[FTMDave]

WoodDD,

 

the experts will ask you to start your own thread, as every case is different (for example the timeframe in which the PPC send out their NTK).

 

Don't ever use e-mail, it just gives the fleecers a free way to harass you.

 

You do need to reply to a formal Letter Before Claim though.

[WoodDD]

Hi All,

 

Just got the 'Letter Before Country Court Claim' on Christmas Eve . How should I handle this one please?

 

Thanks in advance and Happy New Year to All!

 

 

pe lbc.pdf

Edited December 29, 2019 by WoodDD

[dx100uk]

just send on of ericbrothers snotty/insulting letters.

plenty in numerous PE threads here with letter of claim or PAPLOC in the title.

 

dx

 

[WoodDD]

Thank you @dx100uk.

 

What about the following reply?

 

[ericsbrother]

That will suffice if you cnat think of anything better.

 

Now somehtng to think about for later, in para 1of their contract with the LL's assistant surveyor (yes they cna sign things if they have the authority) it says they are demanding money on behaf of the landowner so that menas they have to hand the money over when they beat you at court (pah)

 

you could make the landowner an offer for the trespass set to reflect the true damage done by your wandering off by accident, a penny would be a bit generous but let them know that as PE areMERELY their agents and debt collectors they as ther masters are responsible for paying you the £500 you will get as damages for the breach of the GDPR to get your keeper details

 

i would also bet that the retail area is a lease from the actual landowner and that means PE need to show a proper chain of authority and cant. however, judges are known to decide that oen exists without any evidence of it because PE have told them that it does exist and in civil cases no-one ever tells lies

[WoodDD]

Thank you @ericsbrother!

[WoodDD]

Received the following email from ParkingEye after sending the letter above.

 

Should I reply?

 

-------

 

Dear Sir / Madam,

We write further to your recent correspondence which concerned the above referenced Parking Charge. We recently sent you a Letter Before Claim which informed you that this Parking Charge remains outstanding and had now been processed for further action.

We note from your reply to our Letter Before Claim that you dispute the outstanding sum. We can confirm that we have now reviewed your correspondence but it is our position that the Parking Charge remains due.

We can confirm that £100 remains outstanding and that full payment is required within the next 14 days to prevent further action. We are prepared to take legal action if necessary and should court proceedings be issued, further costs will be incurred. These will include, but are not limited to, the court claim issue fee and the solicitors costs referred to within the Letter Before Claim.

Yours faithfully,
ParkingEye Team

Edited January 17, 2020 by WoodDD

[ericsbrother]

 they are hoping that you dont call their bluff and pay them the money that isnt actually owed to save them the ignominy of losing a court claim.

 

Also the 10 minute grace period is as of monday now mandatory so they will find it very hard to get any sympathy from their trade association for a matter that is outside their PARKING management contract and  is an unlawful penalty charge.

 

They will only waste more of their money by suing you so a second letter about this will make little difference as to whether they do or dont take that step.

 

As for threatening further costs- they cant, they have already sent out the lba that lists exactly what they are asking for and there are no other costs issues for a court to consider unless they decide to send along 15 people as witnesses and ask for the train fare home.

 

That will be  something to behold as the whole thing is ANPR so there are no real witnesses in the first place and PE have been castigated for inventing evidence in their witnEssed statements and not actually sending anyone along to court to speak or defend the statement by cross examination. that is another area where you have the advantage

[dx100uk]

how did they get your email ??

 

 

[WoodDD]

Thanks to @ericsbrother and @dx100uk.

 

Unfortunately I appealed through their website in the name of the vehicle keeper.