DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 13512--------------------------------------------------
Euro Car Parks PCN – Parked longer than maximum – Sainsburys
Ilford
DIR By: M456
Date: January 9, 2024, 11:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello All,
The vehicle is a business contract hire and has received a PCN
from Euro Car Parks for overstaying the maximum period in the
Sainburys car park in Ilford. I believe the maximum time is 90
minutes.
PCN -
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ljvNTVDYEd0XvOSk6Wg-JxPQ1F5YlyDv/view?usp=sharing
The PCN was received on 12 October 2023 and we sent an appeal
using their online portal on 18th October. The content of the
appeal is as follows:
We acknowledge the receipt of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN)
referenced above, dated 12th October 2023, issued by Euro Car
Parks Limited to our company, S Ltd, hereinafter referred to as
SLtd. This PCN pertains to an alleged unpaid parking charge
incurred at Sainsburys, 55 Roden Street, Ilford, Essex, IG1 2AA,
on 23rd September 2023.
We wish to confirm that SLtd is the hirer and keeper of the
vehicle in question, as defined by Schedule 4 of the Protection
of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). In light of this, we are writing to
formally dispute the validity of this PCN.
While the PCN cites the reason for issuance as an "overstay," it
lacks supporting evidence for this claim. Given the absence of
conclusive proof regarding the alleged breach, we trust you will
concur that it would be unreasonable for Euro Car Parks Ltd to
expect us to settle this charge.
Furthermore, it is important to note that the PCN does not
comply with the stringent requirements outlined in Schedule 4 of
POFA. Consequently, Euro Car Parks Ltd has forfeited any right
to claim unpaid parking charges from SLtd as the vehicle's hirer
and keeper.
We kindly request that, within 28 days, you provide us with
written confirmation of Euro Car Parks Ltd’s acknowledgment that
it cannot and does not hold SLtd accountable for this parking
charge. The responsibility for this matter should now rest
solely between Euro Car Parks Ltd and the driver.
We appreciate your cooperation in this regard and look forward
to receiving the requested confirmation.
Though we received an acknowledgement of the appeal, we never
received a response. However late in December we received a
final demand notice letter. As a result we contacted Sainsburys
Executive Office who in turn have got in contact with Euro Car
Parks. Today, 9th January 2024 we received a notice that our
appeal has been rejected.
Rejection -
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pGNohtKGuqIpOLWEWtdzhPUDS7OXB1md/view
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pGNohtKGuqIpOLWEWtdzhPUDS7OXB1md/view
Should we use the same text as our appeal for the POPLA appeal
or something totally different?
Thanks in advance
#Post#: 13513--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks PCN – Parked longer than maximum – Sainsburys
Ilford
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: January 9, 2024, 11:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
We wish to confirm that SLtd is the hirer and keeper of the
vehicle in question
No you are not. The 'keeper' is the registered keeper.
The hirer is the hirer, that's it, the hirer. As a limited
company it is axiomatic that the company was not the driver and
therefore the only entities here are the keeper, as in
registered keeper and we understand the hire company, the hirer
and the driver.
Which begs the question: who is the real keeper i.e. the
registered keeper because someone has thrown your hat into the
ring, but whether you to the lions we've yet to see?
Other questions will follow like where's the PCN and what did
the registered keeper do with their PCN, do they qualify as a
hire company and you as a hirer under PoFA and did they relieve
themselves of their potential liability as specified and was
this demanded of you properly?
So to answer the question: Should we use the same text as our
appeal for the POPLA appeal or something totally different?, the
answer is something different.
#Post#: 13515--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks PCN – Parked longer than maximum – Sainsburys
Ilford
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: January 9, 2024, 11:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It's seldom suitable to use exactly the same text for a POPLA
appeal as the initial appeal for the simple reason that the
audience is different - you're addressing the POPLA assessor
rather than the parking company.
Your initial appeal seems to have been made on 2 grounds:
- Lack of evidence
- Lack of compliance with Schedule 4 of PoFA in order to hold
the hirer liable
1. The rejection mentions entry and exit times (the initial
notice presumably did too, but we haven't seen this). Do you
have any evidence to contradict this, or was this appeal point
more a case of "chancing your arm"?
2. Simply asserting they haven't complied with PoFA is fine for
the initial appeal, but not for POPLA. They won't just take your
word for it. Instead, you'll need to outline exactly how they
have failed to comply with PoFA, and why this means the money is
not owed. If you need any help doing this, you should show us
the initial notice from ECP, and tell us if they sent any
additional documents when they sent the notice to you.
#Post#: 13578--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks PCN – Parked longer than maximum – Sainsburys
Ilford
DIR By: Nosy Parker
Date: January 11, 2024, 4:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I don't think it's helpful to confuse the OP with academic (in
both senses) bickering about the definition of 'keeper'.
I suggest the following for the POPLA appeal.
This is an appeal by the hirer of the vehicle against the
operator's purported notice to hirer.
The operator's purported notice to hirer was not properly issued
as it does not comply with the requirements for a 'notice to
hirer' set out in paragraph 14 of Schedule 4 to the Protection
of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA').
Specifically, and without limitation, the notice does not:
1. comply with the condition set out in sub-paragraph
14.(2)(a) POFA to include with the PCN a copy of the documents
mentioned in POFA paragraph 13(2) and the relevant notice to
keeper;
2. expressly reference paragraph 14.(5) POFA in as required by
sub-paragraph 14.(5)(a);
3. include all the information required to be included pursuant
to POFA sub-paragraph 14.(5)(b);
4. include in the warning required to be included pursuant to
POFA sub-paragraph 14.(5)(c).
Any one of the above failures to comply with POFA is alone
sufficient to require cancellation of the purported notice to
hirer.
POPLA is respectfully reminded that paragraph 21.2 of the BPA
AOS Code of Practice requires strict compliance with POFA in
order for an operator to hold a hirer liable. Partial or even
substantial compliance is not sufficient:
21.2 As long as the strict conditions of Schedule 4 are met, you
may claim payment from the keeper or the hirer of the vehicle
rather than from the driver. To do this you need to follow the
procedures set out in the Schedule.
Furthermore, the hirer is entitled to all defences open to the
driver including lack of landowner authority and inadequate
signage and the hirer reserves the right to expand on these
points in light of any evidence or argument advanced by the
operator.
The notice to hirer must therefore be cancelled.
#Post#: 13633--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks PCN – Parked longer than maximum – Sainsburys
Ilford
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: January 12, 2024, 5:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
M456 - you may notice some replies have moved from this thread.
There was some discussion as to the difference (if any in this
context) between the terms 'keeper' and 'registered keeper'.
Whilst this discussion might be useful generally, it isn't of
direct relevance to your approach to appealing this charge,
which your company should do in their capacity as the hirer of
the vehicle, along the lines of Nosy Parker's advice above.
If you're interested in the discussion that has been moved, it
can be found here: 'Keeper' vs 'Registered Keeper' - PoFA
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/'keeper'-vs-'registered-keeper'-pofa/
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1