DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 29171--------------------------------------------------
Parking Eye Chase Farm (Carpark: Patient and Visitor 3)
DIR By: Parkingchase
Date: July 8, 2024, 4:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi FTLA,
The driver, an NHS staff member, attended a training at the
hospital for a short stay.
When they arrived in the carpark (they found a space, they also
check and found that the parking machine did not dispense
tickets that could be displayed inside the car as it is a
paperless system.)
The process as indicated on instructional signage was to enter
your numberplate as you leave the facility which will then
display the amount that needs to be paid.
The driver arrived at the hospital at 10:48 once parked the
driver checked the ticketing machine which confirmed they needed
to enter their details when leaving.
They attended their training which lasted approximately 2 ½
hours, when they return to their car they followed the
instructions on the machine to pay for parking.
Once they entered their numberplate they had expected to be
prompted to pay the amount in line with the 3 hour parking
charge, however the machine required £10 to be paid (the maximum
charge for a 24h period).
In addition, the machine would not allow payment by card
‘out of order’ and stated It would take cash payment
only.
There was no option to amend the amount or dispute the charge
and once paid no receipt was dispensed or option to request
confirmation of payment again as the machine only accepted cash.
On 02/04/2024 they received via post, a parking fine from
Parkingeye LTD. a discounted £60 fine charging them £100 if not
paid ‘early’.
Their claim is that the driver parked and left without paying at
the carpark on the day of their training (21.04.24).
The driver does not dispute parking between the stated hours,
they do however dispute both having parked without paying the
appropriate parking amount and remaining in the carpark longer
than permitted.
In addition to the above they were unable to dispute the charge
with Parkingeye LTD. As their appeals process on the parking eye
website was unusable due to an ongoing website error which block
the submission of appeals on their portal.
The driver attempted to contact the Royal free trust parking
team close to the date of receiving the PCN but received no
response for several months and this remained quite after
following up in the last weeks.
The driver unfortunately did not contact POPLA as they waited
for a reply from the NHS royal free trust parking team.
Now a county court letter arrived from parking eye. The details
of which will be attached below.
Time is unfortunately very limited and the driver intends to
defend themselves as they paid firstly more than what should
have been owed and now are being pursued for £210. However lack
of a receipt is a key issue challenge.
Any advice would be very much appreciated. Thank you.
#Post#: 29178--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm (Carpark: Patient and Visitor 3)
DIR By: Parkingchase
Date: July 8, 2024, 5:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Timeline
Parking - 21/03/2024
PCN Received - 02/04/2024 [Image 1]
Parking Eye Website Appeal Attempt - 15/04/2024 [Image 2]
Email Sent to PARKINGRFL (The hospital parking management) -
15/04/2024
Note: In this email a screenshot of parking eye website
complaint failure and almost identical description of the
situation as above took place.
County Court Letter arrived - 28/04/2024 [Image 3]
Follow up emails to PARKINGRFL - 30/06/2024, 02/07/2024,
05/07/2024
Note: The follow up emails ask for them to get in
touch.[attachmini=1]
#Post#: 29201--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm (Carpark: Patient and Visitor 3)
DIR By: b789
Date: July 8, 2024, 8:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
We can’t see any images so it is difficult to advise. Have you
followed the instructions in this thread:
READ THIS FIRST - Private Parking Charges Forum guide
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/
There is already a thread on an almost identical situation at
the location already running. However, in that case the driver
has a receipt.
The date the PCN was “received” is irrelevant. The date it was
“issued” is what counts if the keeper is trying to figure out
whether they can be liable under PoFA.
You say you’ve received a “county court letter”. Do you mean an
N1SDT claim form from the CNBC? If so, did you receive a Letter
of Claim (LoC) before the claim was issued?
What is the date of “issue” of the claim form? Has it been
issued by PE directly or are they using a solicitor, usually DCB
Legal? The box under the claimants name and address tells you
who any correspondence should be addressed to.
Ideally, please show us the claim form redacting only your
personal details, the VRM, the claim number and the MCOL
password. Everything else should remain.
#Post#: 29219--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm (Carpark: Patient and Visitor 3)
DIR By: Parkingchase
Date: July 9, 2024, 4:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for your reply b789.
Attachments now uploaded via imgur. Yesterday this was not
possible as the server was apparently full and advised to
contact administrators, see image.
It's a N1SDT claim form.
Need to check with the driver that no other letters were
received.
Issue date of PCN 27/03/2024
Issue date of the N1SDT 24/06/2024
[img]
HTML https://imgur.com/a/In4bO6z[/img]
HTML https://imgur.com/a/In4bO6z
HTML https://imgur.com/a/In4bO6z[img]https://imgur.com/3lMzjCQ[/img][img]https://imgur.com/3lMzjCQ[/img]
[img]
HTML https://imgur.com/3lMzjCQ[/img]
#Post#: 29236--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm (Carpark: Patient and Visitor 3)
DIR By: b789
Date: July 9, 2024, 7:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
With a claim issue date of 24th June, you need to acknowledge
service (AoS) of the claim by 13th July. Here is a guide on how
to do that:
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/gp4lan4cb225p7ajkoy6z/money-claim-online-How-to-Acknowledge.pdf?rlkey=pu8zhuiaxbva4cjdmge72nh4r&e=1&dl=0
There is no advantage to delaying AoS but by filing it in a
timely manner, you then have until 4pm on Monday 29th July to
file your defence. That's almost three weeks away.
Do not use MCOL to file the defence. Your defence will be filed
as a PDF attachment by email to the CNBC. Do not use the MCOL
website to file your defence.
Here is a link to the template for the defence. You only need to
state whether you were the keeper, driver, both or neither and
then add a single paragraph outlining your response to the
allegation in the PoC.
There are a couple of additional paragraphs which I will give
you to put in to the defence as preliminary matters once you've
shown us the paragraph that is your defence. The rest of the
template cover everything and must be used.
Do not write War & Peace. You are answering the woefully
inadequate PoC. You will expand on everything at a later date
when it is time for your Witness Statement.
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/2hnjkuljjr54pvs7m2pte/Updated-defence-Aug2023-4.rtf?rlkey=yzw080l0rw6l41dzv4m0867va&st=ohe4hf1m&dl=0
We could do with seeing the back of the NtK as PE have failed to
show what the added £25 in the claim is for. The are in breach
of PoFA 4(5) in that they are not allowed to claim for more than
the amount that was on the NtK, which was £100.
The burden of proof lies with PE to show that the driver didn't
pay. You say that the driver did. How do you think you can
evidence that a parent was made? Would their payment machine
keep a log of all payments made?
#Post#: 29296--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm (Carpark: Patient and Visitor 3)
DIR By: Parkingchase
Date: July 9, 2024, 3:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks.
Sorry what is NtK and PoC short for?
So I have checked with the driver and they did indeed receive
another letter I have attached that one it is also where PE
claim £25 where added for debt collection.
Page 1
HTML https://imgur.com/sGWKmRs
Page 2 (backside)
HTML https://imgur.com/HcHXwd8
Important Note: The driver was not aware of the second letter as
they were very ill in hospital for an extended period and had
just been released 2 days prior and were still recovering from
home when that letter arrived. This could easily be proven as
they were also off work (rare for the driver) and it will be on
their patient file somewhere.
Image of the backside of the PCN (I assume the NtK)
HTML https://imgur.com/q35e9G8
Payment was just made with the loose change the driver managed
to find as they were not expecting to pay the full day fee as it
was supposed to be the <3hrs.
Therefore the only evidence would indeed be if the PE machine
logs payments on a daily basis or weekly basis.
Would the driver be able to argue that the end of day accounting
would not have added up correctly on that day when compared with
the tariffs and timestamps of all the cars on the lot.
As they definitely inserted more money than PE's system would
have logged parking time on the ANPR.
(So unless someone else paid too little for their parked time
the total accounting on that day would have to be around £7
higher than the total parked time.)
#Post#: 29298--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm (Carpark: Patient and Visitor 3)
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: July 9, 2024, 3:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
NtK = Notice to Keeper (the original parking charge notice
received through the post)
PoC = Particulars of Claim (bottom left corner of the county
court claim form)
You keep referring to the driver, and what he can/cannot argue,
but the Claim Form suggests that ParkingEye are not suing the
driver, but instead the Registered Keeper - if that's the case,
it is the keeper who will be off to court. Has the identity of
the driver been revealed to ParkingEye at any point in the
process?
#Post#: 29299--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm (Carpark: Patient and Visitor 3)
DIR By: Parkingchase
Date: July 9, 2024, 4:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Driver has not been identified to PE.
What happens in these two scenarios Driver = Keeper?
Driver is not the keeper?
(Asked both questions to avoid publicly putting information out
there)
In addition I reached out to POPLA to confirm there is nothing
they can do at this point.
They confirmed they can only become involved if an appeal has
been reject (issues a 10 digit code).
As PE website for appeals was not working at the time there was
no way to obtain a 10 digit code.
Therefore no POPLA appeal could have been made at the time.
Would this be a valid argument? Or would the driver/keeper be
expected to revisit the website frequently until it works again
to appeal?
#Post#: 29312--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm (Carpark: Patient and Visitor 3)
DIR By: b789
Date: July 9, 2024, 7:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The driver and the keeper are two separate legal entities. A
person can be either, both or neither. The driver is always the
person that is liable for the alleged debt. PE have no idea who
the driver is. If they issue the PCN (an NtK in this case) and
fully comply with the requirements of PoFA, and the keeper
doesn’t identify the driver to them, they can transfer the
liability from the unknown driver to the known keeper.
As the keeper has not identified the driver, PE are pursuing the
known keeper… you.
As the keeper did not appeal the PCN, there was no rejection. A
POPLA code is only provided with the appeal rejection. A POPLA
code lasts for 33 days. You cannot appeal to POPLA without a
code.
Was any communication initiated with PE about the failure of
their appeals web portal? Does the NtK mention any other way to
submit an appeal?
You could go through the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) as there is
a clause regarding circumstances when they should re-initiate
the appeals process. It is also expanded on in the new joint CoP
with the IPC. There is a link to the new joint CoP on the
private parking forum home page and there is a link to the BPA
CoP in [member=103]DWMB2[/member]’s signature.
#Post#: 29561--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye Chase Farm (Carpark: Patient and Visitor 3)
DIR By: Parkingchase
Date: July 11, 2024, 5:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks b789.
Unfortunately the backside of the NtK does state appeals can
also be made via postal mail.
The site failure + screenshot was not sent to PE online it is
near impossible except for a narrow set of predefined topics to
contact them.
Further developments:
- A reply after escalating was finally received from the
hospitals parking team.
Will share more details when solid developments come through.
For now we will assume that everything proceeds as normal with
the court process as this is already underway.
Q's after reading the BPA CoP:
Q1) 23.3 Photographic evidence. Can one try to ask PE for
photographic evidence of the driver paying? As they would have
to provide it due to the CoP. As we know the ticket on the day
was paid this would help clarify (not conclusively of course)
that PE have no evidence at all that the driver didn't pay.
Q2) Thinking of defence...there are two signs
HTML https://imgur.com/B1nbdkQ
and
HTML https://imgur.com/gek3EsZ.
Step 6
says a receipt is automatically issued. This did not happen.
On that sign the only contact details are for the telephone
number which is used to pay fines, you cannot wait and get
through to someone it ends the call. Could this be part of an
argument that PE is not reachable in the case of a failure at
their fully automated carpark. Forcing a driver to leave the
site without a receipt in case of a malfunction making them
susceptible to situations such as this one before writing to the
PO Box. It makes it impossible for them to report failures in
automation at the scene, which immediately results in a PCN
being issued.
Q3) CoP 23.13.a.b) Given the occurrence of a similar case I'm
sure I saw on another website but that disappeared at the same
carpark and the other one (where the person has a receipt) on
this site it would not be surprising if there are far more. Can
BPA be asked to try and access this information?
Q4) Finally does anyone know in CoP 7.2 if PE have to ask the
owners of the private land (I believe the hospital, but would
need to check that) every single time they want to pursue a
legal case or just once with a general outline?
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page