DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 38221--------------------------------------------------
Re: ParkingEye - Failure to Pay for Parking - Southall
DIR By: DavidJP
Date: September 25, 2024, 3:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi All,
Just bumping this to the top - any idea on whether I should
respond?
Thanks in advance
#Post#: 38225--------------------------------------------------
Re: ParkingEye - Failure to Pay for Parking - Southall
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: September 25, 2024, 4:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'd ignore and wait for a decision on the appeal.
Please don't bump threads. This is a busy forum and sometimes
replies might not be immediate (we do this in our spare time).
If everyone bumped their threads it would be impossible to keep
up.
#Post#: 44927--------------------------------------------------
Re: ParkingEye - Failure to Pay for Parking - Southall
DIR By: DavidJP
Date: November 10, 2024, 11:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Dear Folks,
I've now had a formal rejection from ParkingEye. Seems pretty
standard but have been provided a POPLA code.
Would you be able to critique my POPLA appeal, please?
Thank you!
Dear POPLA Assessor,
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle referenced in the
Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by ParkingEye Ltd on 12
August 2024 at VHK, Southall car park. I am appealing this
charge on the following grounds:
1. Failure to Comply with Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of
the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
The Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails to comply with the mandatory
wording requirements as outlined in PoFA 2012. Specifically:
Lack of an Explicit "Invitation to Pay": Schedule 4, Paragraph
9(2)(e)(i) of PoFA requires the NtK to explicitly invite the
keeper to pay the unpaid parking charge. The NtK issued by
ParkingEye does not contain such an invitation in clear terms.
The wording is insufficient and ambiguous, failing to convey a
direct obligation for the keeper to pay. As PoFA demands strict
compliance, this failure invalidates the NtK and prevents the
transfer of liability from the driver to me, the registered
keeper.
2. Insufficient Identification of "Relevant Land" as per
Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a) of PoFA
The NtK does not properly identify the “relevant land” on which
the alleged contravention occurred. The vague reference to “VHK,
Southall” fails to provide an adequate and specific description
of the location. The requirement under PoFA is to specify the
land clearly so that the registered keeper can identify where
the vehicle was parked. Without a full address or postcode, this
NtK is non-compliant with Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a) of PoFA,
and therefore, ParkingEye cannot hold me, the registered keeper,
liable.
3. Breach of BPA Code of Practice – Inadequate Signage
The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice requires
that all parking terms and conditions be clearly displayed on
signage throughout the site. This includes the charge amount and
the conditions for parking. The signage at [VHK, Southall car
park] is inadequate for the following reasons:
Insufficient Visibility: The signs are not clearly visible upon
entering or throughout the car park. They are poorly positioned,
and the font is too small to be easily read, particularly in the
hours of reduced visibility (e.g., at 19:50, when the alleged
contravention occurred).
Lack of Clarity: The terms and conditions, including the
consequences of non-compliance, are not prominently displayed in
a clear and concise manner as required by the BPA Code of
Practice.
This lack of adequate signage makes it impossible for a driver
to be fully aware of the contractual obligations they are
entering into, which undermines the legitimacy of the parking
charge.
4. No Evidence of Landowner Authority
ParkingEye has not provided evidence that they have the
authority from the landowner to issue and enforce parking
charges at this site. The BPA Code of Practice (Section 7)
requires that ParkingEye have a written contract with the
landowner, granting them the authority to operate on the land
and pursue parking charges. I request ParkingEye provide an
unredacted copy of their contract with the landowner,
demonstrating their authority. If they cannot provide this, the
charge is invalid.
5. The Charge is Not a Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss
The amount demanded, Ł100, does not represent a genuine
pre-estimate of the loss incurred by the landowner. The car park
is free, and the charge is purely punitive. This contravenes the
principles established in previous cases, where only genuine
pre-estimates of loss can justify such charges. ParkingEye must
justify the charge amount with a breakdown of actual losses
caused by the alleged contravention.
Conclusion
The NtK issued by ParkingEye is non-compliant with PoFA 2012 on
multiple counts, and the signage at the site is inadequate,
breaching the BPA Code of Practice. Furthermore, the legitimacy
of ParkingEye’s authority to issue charges is in question, and
the amount charged is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. For
these reasons, I request that POPLA upholds my appeal and
cancels this Parking Charge Notice.
Thank you for your consideration.
Yours faithfully,
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page