DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 48653--------------------------------------------------
Parking Eye Brent South Retail Park Overstay
DIR By: JLA
Date: December 6, 2024, 11:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi All,
The driver went to this retail car park on 27/11/24, parked up
and visited most of the shops there for varying amounts of time
including eating in Costa. I, the keeper received this parking
charge notice on 2/12/24 stating my vehicle had stayed 4hrs
10mins in a 3hr max stay free car park. As there are quite a few
furniture/carpet/clothing shops there as well as a Costa surely
the driver spending that amount of time there is not
unrealistic.
Can anyone please advise on the best way to go with this and
whether the notice is compliant?
Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.
HTML https://i.ibb.co/fGSqPDc/20241204-130951.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/rftF1dW
upload
HTML https://imgbb.com/
HTML https://i.ibb.co/s1N1H2n/20241204-130958.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/QHTHdfL
upload
HTML https://imgbb.com/
#Post#: 48655--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye Brent South Retail Park Overstay
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: December 6, 2024, 11:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Welcome to FTLA.
Before we get onto any appeals... Did the driver make (m)any
purchases during their stay? A good starting point would be to
gather any receipts for the visit, then try to find the
owner/managing agent for the retail park and see if they will
intervene.
The 3 hour limit was presumably brought in to deter misuse of
the car park by non-customers, who would block spaces that
genuine visitors could otherwise use, not to penalise genuine
customers. It can be tricky getting much progress with retail
parks sometimes, but is well worth a go first.
#Post#: 48725--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye Brent South Retail Park Overstay
DIR By: Dave65
Date: December 7, 2024, 4:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
"Right to recover from you"
Does not say the keeper is invited to pay the charge.
#Post#: 48752--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye Brent South Retail Park Overstay
DIR By: b789
Date: December 7, 2024, 6:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
PE NtKs, are never fully compliant with all the requirements of
PoFA and as always, this Nt K does not comply with paragraph
9(2)(e)(i). However, you would have to be very explicit and able
to communicate this to the POPLA assessor after PE reject the
appeal.
Plan A is always try and get the landowner of their managing
agent to get the PCN cancelled. If you are a genuine customer at
various businesses at the location, you don't want them knowing
that you will ever come back and use them if an unregulated
private parking company can just issue you with a £100 invoice.
PE will of course argue that the Beavis case applies in this car
park, and they are right, unless you can show that the signage
is different to that in the Beavis case.
You can only get a POPLA code after an initial appeal to PE.
After exhausting Plan A and before the appeal deadline, you
appeal to PE with the following, which will be rejected but gets
you a POPLA code:
--- Quote ---
> I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking
charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I
will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your
client landowner.
>
> As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL
the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper
of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even
substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no
admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions
can be drawn. ParkingEye has relied on contract law allegations
of breach against the driver only.
>
> The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have
been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation
of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable.
ParkingEye have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us
both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1