DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 30077--------------------------------------------------
ParkingEye issued 2 PCNs, £60 paid, POPLA appeal rejected on
another
DIR By: 8vaibhav
Date: July 16, 2024, 1:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I had two different ParkingEye PCNs for parking at the same
location Morrisons (tried getting the 2nd PCN cancelled with
them but they say they can't do anything and I need to contact
ParkingEye directly, of course that's impossible)
First incident happened on 16th March.
Parking Signage said "Overnight Parking Tariffs Apply" but then
also says "Upto 9 hours". This was confusing as "overnight"
parking would almost always exceed 9 hours.
I went to PayByPhone App (which I used regularly), so I can
select hours and minutes and pay accordingly, instead of hours
it showed me the option to select number of days with NO mention
of any "9 hours" limit. It was asking £15.20 which seemed
excessive by any measure for 3 hours I spent there. It was also
allowing to select multiple "days" which didn't make sense given
the 9 hour limit and I concluded this was some BUG.
So, I thought I would try the machine on the venue before
leaving. The parking machine was "out of service" and asked to
used another machine while there was NO other machine. I
ultimately had to leave without paying.
I drive a Leased EV, which means PCNs send to me take much
longer to reach me.
So, I ended up parking again on the same venue on 1st April, and
the machine was still out of order. I left without paying again
and the very next day PCN for the first one arrived by post.
I appealled this but seems no real person read it, and they
auto-rejected so I appealed on POPLA.
While waiting for POPLA decision I got 2nd PCN, I appealled
again but again of course auto-rejected. This time I dindn't
appeal to POPLA and paid £60 instead (thought to reduce damage)
POPLA desicion finally arrived where they agreed that parking
machine was indeed "out of service" but didn't see it reason
enough to reject PCN. Also, they agreed with PayByPhone being
misleading but that didn't mean anything to them either. Please
see attached their decision.
Now I have recieved FINAL notice (attached) despite paying £60
for already and despite having acknowledgement from POPLA that
parking machine was out of order. I am in no mood to pay another
£100 to get to a total of £160 to this company for a few hours
of parking at the premise.
***UNABLE TO UPLOAD ANY ATTACHMENTS, The upload folder is full.
Please try a smaller file and/or contact an administrator.***
Final Notice is asking me to pay within 14 days or they would
raise it Debt recovery or court proceedings etc. Please advise
next steps.
#Post#: 30079--------------------------------------------------
Re: ParkingEye issued 2 PCNs, £60 paid, POPLA appeal rejected on
another
DIR By: b789
Date: July 16, 2024, 1:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
What a pity you didn't come here first before appealing and
blowing your best and guaranteed chance to get this cancelled at
the first hurdle. I am assuming that you, the Hirer (lessee) of
the vehicle identified the driver.
In all Hire/leased vehicle cases, the PPC will fail to fully
comply with the requirements of PoFA and so be unable to hold
the known Hirer (lessee) liable for the charge. As long as the
Hirer does not identify the unknown driver and there is no legal
obligation on the Hirer to do so, then the PPC has nowhere to
run with this.
The unknown driver is always liable. The keeper (Hire/lease
company) has no idea who the driver is. The PPC has no idea who
the driver is. The driver is unknown... unless the Hirer babs
it, inadvertently or otherwise.
The known keeper receives a Notice to Keeper. The known keeper
transfers liability for the PCN from themselves to the known
Hirer. The known Hirer then receive a Notice to Hirer (NtH) in
their own name. The PPC fails to follow all the strict
requirements of paragraph 14(2)(b) of PoFA and so cannot hold
the known keeper liable for the sins of the unknown driver.
Did you reveal the unknown drivers identity and so make the
driver known? The driver is always liable.
In future, never, ever, ever, reveal the identity of the driver
if you don't want to be scammed by these predators.
By paying the £60, you admitted liability and can kiss that
money goodbye. If you had not identified the driver, you would
not have to pay a penny to PE. Once the NtH was received, a
simple "go get stuffed" protocol appeal would put an end to the
matter:
[indent]This is an appeal by the Hirer - No driver details will
be given. Please do NOT try the trick of asking for driver
details in order to get around the fact your NtH does not fully
comply with the strict requirements of PoFA 14(2)(b). As there
is no Hirer liability, therefore, liability cannot flow from the
driver to the Hirer and so, is an automatic win at POPLA. Please
cancel the notice or issue a POPLA code at which point you will
auto withdraw.[/indent]
So, in this case, you have complicated matters. However, all is
not lost. For now, you must ignore all final demands and any
debt collector letters. You have to wait and see if PE will
pursue this all the way to court. They don't always, especially
if they farm it out to a third party, bottom-dwelling firm of
roboclaim solicitors such as DCB Legal. If they do, you can
guarantee that if you follow the advice and defend any claim
robustly using a template defence, they will eventually
discontinue.
#Post#: 30083--------------------------------------------------
Re: ParkingEye issued 2 PCNs, £60 paid, POPLA appeal rejected on
another
DIR By: 8vaibhav
Date: July 16, 2024, 2:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks so much for response.
I am not sure I could have stated the "driver unknown" premise.
Octopus EV who are the owners of my car seemed to indicate that
if I don't reach to ParkingEye myself, they will settle any
fines and then bill me later for it. I have lost the exact
communication from them sadly so not 100% sure now. It just
didn't occur to me it was posible to claim unknown driver.
The conditions of my lease and linked insurance state that I am
the only allowed driver and Ocotopus shared my details with
ParkingEye, are you sure I could still claim "unkown driver"?
(asking for next time)
Also kindly advise what do these shortforms mean?
1. PE (I am guessing ParkingEye in this case)
2. NtH (I am guessing Notice to Hirer??)
3. PoFA (No clue about this one)
About the present case, thanks so much, I will update in this
thread if I get further communication.
Thanks,
Vaibhav
#Post#: 30085--------------------------------------------------
Re: ParkingEye issued 2 PCNs, £60 paid, POPLA appeal rejected on
another
DIR By: b789
Date: July 16, 2024, 2:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
No one has said that you must lie and declare that the driver is
unknown. All you have to admit to is that you are the Hirer
(true) and that you are not legally obliged to identify the
driver (true).
Neither Octopus (the keeper) nor the PPC know the identity of
the driver. Octopus will have simply transferred liability from
them, the keeper to the you, the Hirer. Only you, the Hirer
could identify the driver and, as you are under no legal
obligation to do so, you shouldn't, inadvertently or otherwise.
The driver is always liable but if the driver is unknown, the
PPC is required to fully comply with the strict requirements if
they want to transfer the liability from the driver to to the
Hirer. I have never yet seen any PPC fully comply with the
strict requirements of PoFA to be able to transfer that
liability. If they are unable to transfer the liability, they
have nowhere to go with this. The burden of proof is on the
operator to prove who the driver was. They are not allowed to
assume nor infer that that the Hirer must also be the driver.
There are persuasive appellate law cases to back that up.
NtK = Notice to Keeper
NtH = Notice to Hirer
PoFA = Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted.<br
/>This is the law that overturned centuries of common law where
liability for a breach of contract could be transferred to
someone who was not a party to that contract.
#Post#: 30087--------------------------------------------------
Re: ParkingEye issued 2 PCNs, £60 paid, POPLA appeal rejected on
another
DIR By: 8vaibhav
Date: July 16, 2024, 2:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Many thanks again for quick and brilliant responses.
However, Octopus (The keeper) definitely know who the driver is,
it's part of my agreement/insurance that NOBODY but me is
allowed to drive.
I suppose you are saying that in theory we can't 100% rule out
that someone else temperoarily drove the car without my
knowledge and put the car back in my parking spot. In which
case, nobody is lying, though clearly this feels like it..
#Post#: 30089--------------------------------------------------
Re: ParkingEye issued 2 PCNs, £60 paid, POPLA appeal rejected on
another
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: July 16, 2024, 3:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Not voluntarily providing information you are under no
obligation to provide is not lying.
--- Quote ---
> I suppose you are saying that in theory we can't 100% rule out
that someone else temperoarily drove the car without my
knowledge and put the car back in my parking spot.
--- End Quote ---
We're not saying that - you know who was driving, but ParkingEye
don't, and you were under no obligation to tell them, and you
can decline to tell them without having to lie. As a daft
example to illustrate the point: I know my credit card number,
but I can refuse to tell you what it is without lying.
Out of interest, what did you receive from ParkingEye, did they
describe it as a Notice to Hirer?
Anyway, back to the bones of the case - in anticipation of
potential court action, it would be wise to ensure you have
gathered any evidence you might need to rely on, such as
photographs of the car park signage detailing the terms and
conditions, and any screenshots of the defective website you
mentioned.
--- Quote ---
>
> ***UNABLE TO UPLOAD ANY ATTACHMENTS, The upload folder is
full. Please try a smaller file and/or contact an
administrator.***
--- End Quote ---
You'll need to use a third party site like Imgur to upload any
photos - there's a guide to doing this here: READ THIS FIRST -
Private Parking Charges Forum guide
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/
#Post#: 30105--------------------------------------------------
Re: ParkingEye issued 2 PCNs, £60 paid, POPLA appeal rejected on
another
DIR By: 8vaibhav
Date: July 16, 2024, 5:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DWMB2 link ---
>
> Out of interest, what did you receive from ParkingEye, did
they describe it as a Notice to Hirer?
>
--- End Quote ---
Please see initial letter, it's addressed in my name to my
address (erased particulars before uploading)
Front:
HTML https://i.imgur.com/HXdTc9t.jpg
Back:
HTML https://imgur.com/Yu9QBNc.jpg
#Post#: 30106--------------------------------------------------
Re: ParkingEye issued 2 PCNs, £60 paid, POPLA appeal rejected on
another
DIR By: 8vaibhav
Date: July 16, 2024, 5:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Other images:
Final Notice:
HTML https://imgur.com/yIGo0K8.jpg
POPLA decision:
HTML https://imgur.com/1N35egn.jpg
HTML https://imgur.com/Vy3ZDIc.jpg
Signage:
HTML https://imgur.com/ZO8qLdG.jpg
Broken Machine:
HTML https://imgur.com/wFb8u7P.jpg
PayByPhone screenhot:
HTML https://imgur.com/h8wTFsA.jpg
#Post#: 30109--------------------------------------------------
Re: ParkingEye issued 2 PCNs, £60 paid, POPLA appeal rejected on
another
DIR By: b789
Date: July 16, 2024, 6:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
So, OP identified themself to be the driver according to the
POPLA assessor. No need to discuss PoFA as it is not in play. OP
as known driver is liable.
Wasted golden ticket. OP now has to decide whether to fight this
or cave in.
#Post#: 30129--------------------------------------------------
Re: ParkingEye issued 2 PCNs, £60 paid, POPLA appeal rejected on
another
DIR By: 8vaibhav
Date: July 17, 2024, 4:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> So, OP identified themself to be the driver according to the
POPLA assessor. No need to discuss PoFA as it is not in play. OP
as known driver is liable.
>
> Wasted golden ticket. OP now has to decide whether to fight
this or cave in.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thanks for all the help, do feel like an idiot getting tricked.
But I got two questions, I know these Operators mostly act as
savages trying earns money of innocents but doesn't this
keeper/driver anomaly, leave room for system-abuse, as in should
one NEVER pay parking charges if they have some free time to
challenge any PCNs which may come up?
2nd more relevant question, based on the broken parking machine,
confusing PayByPhone screenshot and signage and having paid £60
on one PCN, am I likely to win if this were perused further by
ParkingEye? (I definitely expect they will send all possible
automated letters at the very least)
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 3
DIR Next Page