DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 35019--------------------------------------------------
ParkingEye - Failure to Pay for Parking - Southall
DIR By: DavidJP
Date: August 30, 2024, 4:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The driver of this vehicle failed to pay for parking. It was an
absent minded mistake that has resulted in a PCN.
Can we rely on POFA 2012 (Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i)) for
an appeal? I understand PE are notorious for rejecting appeals.
Many thanks in advance.
HTML https://i.imgur.com/fqjJZDq.jpeg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/NUYsWf7.jpeg
#Post#: 35025--------------------------------------------------
Re: ParkingEye - Failure to Pay for Parking - Southall
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: August 30, 2024, 5:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I've removed those images, you need to redact your VRM and the
parking charge reference number.
#Post#: 35029--------------------------------------------------
Re: ParkingEye - Failure to Pay for Parking - Southall
DIR By: DavidJP
Date: August 30, 2024, 5:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DWMB2 link ---
>
> I've removed those images, you need to redact your VRM and the
parking charge reference number.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thank you - now edited with redacted images.
#Post#: 35052--------------------------------------------------
Re: ParkingEye - Failure to Pay for Parking - Southall
DIR By: b789
Date: August 30, 2024, 7:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
In addition to PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) there is also a failure of
paragraph 3 because they have not clearly defined the “relevant
land”. This leads to a failure of PoFA 9(2)(a).
However, do not hang your hat on those technical arguments. They
would only have a chance of working as long as the appeal is
made by the keeper and the drivers identity is not divulged. PE
would reject any appeal in those points anyway but the point
would be to get a POPLA code and appeal to them.
I have no idea where “VHK, Southall” is. Relevant land should be
identifiable with an actual address and post code. They have not
provided either, hence the “relevant land” argument. Check out
the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) for what it says about it.
#Post#: 35054--------------------------------------------------
Re: ParkingEye - Failure to Pay for Parking - Southall
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: August 30, 2024, 7:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Have a search on here for "relevant land" and you should be able
to find other appeals where this has been raised to help you
draft something. Show us what you come up with before sending
anything.
If you're struggling I can help draft something over the
weekend.
ParkingEye will probably reject (because they can). You've more
chance at POPLA, although they can be a bit unpredictable when
it comes to arguments about vague location.
#Post#: 35100--------------------------------------------------
Re: ParkingEye - Failure to Pay for Parking - Southall
DIR By: The Rookie
Date: August 30, 2024, 3:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
As above, the keeper who wasn’t there needs to be able to
identify where the parking event occurred in order to defend any
allegation, PoFA recognises this and the description given here
is meaningless to me, and Google maps.
#Post#: 35112--------------------------------------------------
Re: ParkingEye - Failure to Pay for Parking - Southall
DIR By: DavidJP
Date: August 30, 2024, 6:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Many thanks all, please find my appeal wording below. Grateful
for feedback
--- Quote ---
> I am writing to formally challenge the Parking Charge Notice
(PCN) referenced above, issued to vehicle registration number
XXXXX. As the registered keeper of the vehicle, I dispute this
PCN on the following grounds:
>
> 1. Non-Compliance with Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
>
> The Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails to comply with the strict
requirements of Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of the
Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. Specifically, the NtK
does not include a clear and explicit "invitation to pay" the
unpaid parking charge. The Act requires this invitation to be
clearly stated, without reliance on implication or indirect
language.This omission renders the NtK non-compliant with the
legal requirements, and as a result, you are unable to transfer
liability for the alleged parking charge to me, the registered
keeper.
>
> 2. Failure to Identify the Relevant Land (Schedule 4,
Paragraph 9(2)(a) of PoFA 2012)
>
> Additionally, the NtK fails to clearly define the "relevant
land" on which the vehicle was allegedly parked. The location
stated as "VHK, Southall" is insufficiently specific and does
not provide an adequate address or postcode, making it
impossible to identify the precise location of the alleged
contravention. This failure to accurately specify the relevant
land is a breach of Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a) of PoFA 2012.
>
> 3. Non-Compliance with BPA Code of Practice.
>
> Furthermore, the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of
Practice requires that the NtK clearly specifies the location
where the alleged contravention occurred.
>
> The vague description provided in this instance does not meet
the BPA’s standards for clarity and transparency, further
invalidating this PCN. Given the above points, the PCN issued is
not compliant with the requirements set out in PoFA 2012.
>
> Consequently, I request that this parking charge be cancelled
immediately.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 35509--------------------------------------------------
Re: ParkingEye - Failure to Pay for Parking - Southall
DIR By: DavidJP
Date: September 3, 2024, 12:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> In addition to PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) there is also a failure of
paragraph 3 because they have not clearly defined the “relevant
land”. This leads to a failure of PoFA 9(2)(a).
>
> However, do not hang your hat on those technical arguments.
They would only have a chance of working as long as the appeal
is made by the keeper and the drivers identity is not divulged.
PE would reject any appeal in those points anyway but the point
would be to get a POPLA code and appeal to them.
>
> I have no idea where “VHK, Southall” is. Relevant land should
be identifiable with an actual address and post code. They have
not provided either, hence the “relevant land” argument. Check
out the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) for what it says about it.
>
--- End Quote ---
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> In addition to PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) there is also a failure of
paragraph 3 because they have not clearly defined the “relevant
land”. This leads to a failure of PoFA 9(2)(a).
>
> However, do not hang your hat on those technical arguments.
They would only have a chance of working as long as the appeal
is made by the keeper and the drivers identity is not divulged.
PE would reject any appeal in those points anyway but the point
would be to get a POPLA code and appeal to them.
>
> I have no idea where “VHK, Southall” is. Relevant land should
be identifiable with an actual address and post code. They have
not provided either, hence the “relevant land” argument. Check
out the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) for what it says about it.
>
--- End Quote ---
Many thanks both - what do you think of my draft in my previous
post? Thanking you in advance.
#Post#: 35529--------------------------------------------------
Re: ParkingEye - Failure to Pay for Parking - Southall
DIR By: b789
Date: September 3, 2024, 3:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
In this bit:
--- Quote ---
> 1. Non-Compliance with Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
>
> The Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails to comply with the strict
requirements of Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of the
Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. Specifically, the NtK
does not include a clear and explicit "invitation to pay" the
unpaid parking charge. The Act requires this invitation to be
clearly stated, without reliance on implication or indirect
language.This omission renders the NtK non-compliant with the
legal requirements, and as a result, you are unable to transfer
liability for the alleged parking charge to me, the registered
keeper.
>
--- End Quote ---
You haven't pointed out that there is no "invitation" for the
"keeper" to pay the charge.
PE are going to reject anything you send so just get on with it
and send something so you can get your POPLA code.
#Post#: 37902--------------------------------------------------
Re: ParkingEye - Failure to Pay for Parking - Southall
DIR By: DavidJP
Date: September 22, 2024, 6:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi All,
I received the following from Parking Eye - but its just a
request to provide more info. I am assuming its best not to
reply and let the appeal play out?
See imgur link here :
HTML https://imgur.com/UxiVGhh
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page