DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 3043--------------------------------------------------
Private PCN St Michael's Court
DIR By: Chaseman
Date: August 10, 2023, 12:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"The driver" parked the car in a private car park controlled by
Parking Eye on 27 July. She is not now sure whether she paid for
two hours and exceeded it, or the limit of free parking was 2
hours and she exceeded that. The PCN does not make it clear
either. Under Parking Charge Information it states "By either
not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at
the car park for longer than permitted....the parking charge is
now payable"
First this catch-all sort of wording to describe the "offence"
would not be permissible in a Council PCN. Secondly the location
is given only as St Michaels Court. No address, no town, no
postcode. The ticket turned up while the driver was away and I
had no idea where the place was so I Googled it and deduced it
was Amersham. The car's V5 is in my name. I can obviously appeal
citing vagueness of both the offence and the location but I
guess Parking Eye will just turn that down automatically. I have
no experience of the procedure for appealing to POPLA.
Questions:
- Any chance such an appeal to Parking Eye will succeed?
- If I appeal before the 14 day discount period is up (15 Aug)
will PE put the discount on hold pending their reply?
I can delay things by writing to PE and stating that I am the RK
but was not the driver and giving them the name of the driver
but does this risk the discount and is there any point?
Presumably if one appeals to POPLA the full penalty of £100 is
at risk? Any views on the likelihood of success there?
If I just ignore the thing altogether I presumably will get
increasingly threatening letters referring to bailiffs and court
summonses but are they actually likely to follow through on any
of this?
GSV unfortunately dates from Sep 2018 when it may have been
under control of a different contractor
HTML https://www.google.com/maps/@51.6783501,-0.6044512,3a,45y,317.68h,91.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgk6MB5utBikTYKU7_FlJog!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu
HTML https://imgur.com/a/gWxfyQi
#Post#: 3047--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private PCN Amersham
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: August 10, 2023, 1:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Chaseman link ---
>
> [The driver] parked the car in a private car park in Amersham
controlled by Parking Eye on 27 July. She is not now sure
whether she paid for two hours and exceeded it, or the limit of
free parking was 2 hours and she exceeded that. The PCN does not
make it clear either.
>
--- End Quote ---
I would imagine it is the former - as the PCN states:
[indent]"The signage states that, as a paid car park, a Parking
Charge is applicable if the motorist fails to make the
appropriate tariff payment"[/indent]
--- Quote from: Chaseman link ---
>
> "By either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by
remaining at the car park for longer than permitted....the
parking charge is now payable"
--- End Quote ---
I take your point about the 'catch all' phrase being rather
vague, although it is standard for ParkingEye charges, and I
think it would be an uphill battle to convince POPLA or a judge
that the charge is not owed on that basis alone. A counter
argument is that the two options describe largely the same
thing: if a motorist pays for 2 hours parking and stays for 2
and a half, then they have both not purchased the appropriate
parking time and stayed for longer than permitted.
--- Quote from: Chaseman link ---
>
> I can obviously appeal citing vagueness of both the offence
and the location but I guess Parking Eye will just turn that
down automatically.
--- End Quote ---
This might be a more applicable avenue. You're right that the
location is rather vague - St Michael's Court isn't a
particularly unique name for a location, and without a town or
postcode it could refer to a number of locations. In order to
hold you liable as the keeper (rather than holding the driver,
who they do not know, liable), they need to comply with Schedule
4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act. 9(2)(a) of that Act says
they must
[indent]"specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was
parked and the period of parking to which the notice
relates"[/indent]
You could make an argument that they have failed to specify the
land with their vague description. I'm not aware of any
authority/cases that have provided a definition of what is
required in order to satisfy this requirement. On issues that
aren't clear cut, it can be hard to predict which way POPLA will
go, so it depends somewhat on your attitude to risk. Some useful
background reading from over on PePiPoo:
HTML http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=144900
HTML http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=144900
- in that
case (involving UKPC), the notice simply stated a road and a
postcode. The road in question was rather long with multiple
private car parks, so the appeal largely centred on a failure to
specify the relevant land.
If you're going to go down this route, show us a draft of your
proposed appeal before sending anything.
#Post#: 3057--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private PCN Amersham
DIR By: guest179
Date: August 10, 2023, 4:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The driver" parked the car in a private car park in Amersham
controlled by Parking Eye on 27 July.
How do you know? The question is rhetorical but not without
purpose. Pl delete all reference to where you guess this breach
might have occurred because IMO it undermines the main plank of
your defence.
The PCN simply states 'St. Michael's Court'.
Pl amend your thread title. It's not your job as keeper (but not
driver) to join up the dots of this PCN.
You are denied the ability to construct a proper defence for
want of knowing where the hell it is alleged the breach is
supposed to have occurred.
#Post#: 3062--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private PCN St Michael's Court
DIR By: Chaseman
Date: August 10, 2023, 6:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I have read the case to which DWMB refers on Pepipoo and the
draft letter provided by him in that case:
--- Quote ---
> Dear Sirs,
>
> I have just received your Notice to Keeper xxxxx for vehicle
VRM xxxx
>
> You have failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4
of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited
to, failing to specify the location of the relevant land as
required by section 9 (2)(a) of the Act. It is not possible to
determine the location of the alleged breach of your conditions
by the wide area covered by the street name and postcode you
have given, which contains a number of private and public car
parks. You cannot, therefore, transfer liability for the alleged
charge from the driver at the time to me, the keeper.
>
> There is no legal requirement to name the driver at the time
and I will not be doing so.
>
> I do not expect to hear from you again, or your debt
collectors, except to confirm that no further action will be
taken on this matter and my personal details have been removed
from your records.
>
> Yours etc
--- End Quote ---
I note the keeper was successful in that case because POPLA
agreed that the PPC had not specified the "relevant land". In
that case the PCN had specified a road but one on which a number
of private car parks sat. In my case the PCN gives the name "St
Michael's Court" only with no town or postcode. A quick search
on Google Maps shows several St Michael's Courts in the country
so my argument is that this is even more vague than the Endorfin
case. I am minded to use DWMB's template and file an appeal.
Does Parking Eye have to hold the discount open pending their
reply?
#Post#: 3068--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private PCN St Michael's Court
DIR By: The Rookie
Date: August 11, 2023, 4:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It would help if, when it comes to POPLA, you could find lots of
'St Michaels' court' so as to validate that it's not specific
enough.
I readily found Alysham, Amersham, London, South Shields,
Gloucester, Derby, Litchfield and Weybridge!
#Post#: 3073--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private PCN St Michael's Court
DIR By: Chaseman
Date: August 11, 2023, 5:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely! The key to my appeal - could be all over the
country. Looking at the case referenced by DWMB on Pepipoo where
a rather long street was deemed too vague, a locus that could be
in several parts of the country would seem to be a winner but I
have never been to POPLA, only PATAS/LTs so don't know how
consistent they are. Any views on chances of success?
Still asking the question - if I appeal to PE within 14 days
i.e. by next Tues, will they keep the discount in place pending
their reply?
#Post#: 3077--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private PCN St Michael's Court
DIR By: The Rookie
Date: August 11, 2023, 5:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Chaseman link ---
>
> Still asking the question - if I appeal to PE within 14 days
i.e. by next Tues, will they keep the discount in place pending
their reply?
>
--- End Quote ---
It will tell you on the PCN, but they will reject the appeal
anyway (because they can) so it's not a relevant question unless
you intend to pay when they reject, in which case you may as
well pay now as they will reject.
#Post#: 3082--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private PCN St Michael's Court
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: August 11, 2023, 6:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I don't think there's anything compelling them to uphold the
discount. From memory I can't remember if ParkingEye do or not.
But as The Rookie suggests, there's probably a 95% chance
they'll reject your appeal regardless of its merits, so you
should be prepared to go as far as POPLA if you're intending to
fight it.
As I said in my previous reply, it somewhat depends on your
attitude to risk. If you pay now, there's a 100% chance it'll
cost you £60. If you go to POPLA, there's a chance you'll have
to pay £0, and a chance that the full £100 will be in play*.
*Note than POPLA's decision would not be binding on you, if they
rejected you can still refuse to pay and have the matter heard
in court if ParkingEye choose to pursue it (a loss there would
likely be around £200-220)
#Post#: 3085--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private PCN St Michael's Court
DIR By: Chaseman
Date: August 11, 2023, 7:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
There is nothing on the PCN about preserving the discount.
However the logic from Rookie and DWMB is sound. If we take it
that they are going to reject, and if I am minded to pay up if
they do, then I might as well pay now. I should say that I am
not minded to pay now!
Quite understand the risk/reward argument. If there is at least
a 50/50 chance of succeeding at POPLA then it is worth making
the appeal. I haven't so far heard anyone say my chances at
POPLA are <50% with the vague locus argument.
One further question - if the POPLA decision is not binding on
me, is it binding on PE? Or is it just the case that PE would
never bother to take it to court once an appeal had been upheld
by POPLA?
#Post#: 3088--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private PCN St Michael's Court
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: August 11, 2023, 7:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I tend not to advise people on their chances at POPLA unless
it's clear cut either way (i.e. a near guaranteed success or a
guaranteed failure), simply because it's hard to predict which
way the assessor will go on a given case, and I don't like to
give people either false hope or false pessimism.
The POPLA decision is binding on ParkingEye but not on you. So
if POPLA uphold your appeal, ParkingEye must cancel the charge.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 9
DIR Next Page