DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 69856--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hospital car park PCN - child's outpatient appointment
DIR By: pharmchick
Date: May 3, 2025, 8:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Understood now, thanks! Parkingeye do not seem to have an email
address but I managed to find one via an online forum:
enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk
I will use this email and also send a recorded letter to
Parkingeye (just in case the email isn't working) as well as
copy the hospital too.
Is there a mandatory timeframe for the company
(Parkingeye/hospital) to respond to accusations of data
breaches? I just read on the ICO the following: "Part 3 of the
DPA 2018 introduces a duty on all organisations to report
certain types of personal data breach to the Information
Commissioner. You must do this within 72 hours of becoming aware
of the breach, where feasible." I am wondering if this can be
somehow used to force them to abandon ship...
#Post#: 69864--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hospital car park PCN - child's outpatient appointment
DIR By: b789
Date: May 3, 2025, 10:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You don't need to send a letter "recorded" delivery. Under the
Interpretation Act, a letter that is sent by first class post is
deemed delivered after two working days. Just go to any post
office and request a free proof of posting" certificate.
#Post#: 69866--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hospital car park PCN - child's outpatient appointment
DIR By: pharmchick
Date: May 3, 2025, 10:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks a lot! I am writing the letter now as we speak. I will
update as soon as I have received a response.
#Post#: 69895--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hospital car park PCN - child's outpatient appointment
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: May 3, 2025, 3:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You have acknowledged that you were the driver.
The NTK only has relevance if they intend to exercise their
right to hold the keeper liable.
But they don't, they may hold you liable as driver.
The NTK has no relevance after any period to 'appeal' to POPLA
has expired..
...and this was when? You have not posted their rejection.
As regards the Parking Charge Notice and dates, it's the typical
nonsense we see.
There is NO such beast as a Parking Charge Notice in legislation
or under any Code of Practice. It is PURELY a creation of the
industry whereby the acronym - PCN - is the same as that in the
regulated (local authority) sector, namely Penalty Charge
Notice. In your case, the only regulatory notice is a Notice to
Keeper. And its purpose is to advise you of the parking charge
incurred by the driver, invite you to pay, give you the
opportunity to appeal or give the creditor the driver's details
and notify you that subject to conditions they may hold you
liable as keeper for the charge in default.
In your case, the penalty charge was incurred on 28 March which
is when the breach occurred and the NOTICE was issued on 2
April, served on 4th which is within any 14-day period.
Of course you may rattle cages with extra-procedural
correspondence, but essentially you're stuck with whatever
position you're in as driver.
But we don't know because we haven't seen their rejection of
your 'appeal'.
Pl post.
#Post#: 69902--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hospital car park PCN - child's outpatient appointment
DIR By: pharmchick
Date: May 3, 2025, 4:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
See attached; the letter was dated 23 April. Are you saying
d789’s points are invalid?
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 69905--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hospital car park PCN - child's outpatient appointment
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: May 3, 2025, 4:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The points are entirely valid, but with an identified driver,
not necessarily a silver bullet. Making a big noise with PALS is
very much worthwhile, and likewise ParkingEye as advised. They
may not wish for any poor practice to come under too much
scrutiny, so making a fuss may get you put in the "too much
hassle" pile by ParkingEye and make them give up. Certainly
worth a go.
Re. the point around KADOE data not being issued the same day,
this is usually confirmed by DVLA themselves in responses to
Subject Access Requests. A recent one I submitted contained the
following about releases:
[indent]"As these requests were made electronically they would
have generated automatic responses, which would have been sent
to the company the following working day."[/indent]
You may wish to send a Subject Access Request to DVLA yourself,
so that you have a copy of when ParkingEye requested your
details, and similar confirmation that the data would have
reached ParkingEye the following working day. You can do so
here: Make a subject access request to DVLA
HTML https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/make-a-subject-access-request-to-dvla<br
/>
#Post#: 69912--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hospital car park PCN - child's outpatient appointment
DIR By: pharmchick
Date: May 3, 2025, 5:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
So just to clarify, would the pcn need to have been issued the
day after the event (and not on the event) at the earliest as
d789 explained? They were only ever able to issue a notice to
the keeper because they sent the pcn via post (so couldn’t be a
notice to the driver). Please correct me if I am wrong
#Post#: 69930--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hospital car park PCN - child's outpatient appointment
DIR By: b789
Date: May 4, 2025, 5:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
A Parking Charge Notice (PCN) is just a term used to say that a
"ticket" has been issued. What is important is how the PCN is
issued. It can reissued either as a Notice to Driver (NtD) which
is stuck on the windscreen or it can be issued as a postal
Notice to Keeper (NtK).
The point is that you received an NtK and subsequently
identified yourself, the Keeper, as the driver, when there is no
legal obligation to do so. Until you identified as the driver,
they had no idea who was driving, only that you are the
registered keeper.
The driver is always liable for any charge. However, if the NtK
is fully compliant with PoFA, they can shift the liability from
the unknown driver to the known Keeper. If the NtK is not fully
compliant with all the requirements of PoFA, and this one isn't,
even if they pretend it is, then they cannot hold the Keeper
liable. They are not allowed to presume or infer that the Keeper
must also have been the driver.
So, this is why you should never identify the driver if you
receive an NtK. The Keeper only needs to refer to the driver in
the third person.
As you have identified as the driver, it matters not that you
are the Keeper. They will hold you liable for the charge.
When they rejected the appeal, the provided a POPLA code which
you can use to appeal to a supposedly "independent" appeals
service, but that is not strictly true, as POPLA are funded by
the very same companies that are trying to pursue you for the
charge in the first place.
The POPLA code is valid for 33 days from the date of the appeal
rejection. POPLA will not consider any mitigation. They only
assess whether the PCN has been issued correctly. So, if you can
persuade the POPLA assessor that the operator has failed to
comply with any aspect of the law of the PPSCoP, then the PCN
has been issued incorrectly.
In your case, you have to try and persuade the assessor that
ParkingEye have issued the NtK incorrectly because an NtK cannot
be issued the same day as the parking event. Also, you can
appeal other points too, such as poor or missing signage,
incorrect wording on the NtK or missing periods pf parking being
noted.
In your case, there is no evidence that the vehicle was parked
for longer than the minimum consideration period (5 minutes).
The driver could simply have parked, gone to seek out a sign
with the terms and conditions on it, read those terms and
conditions and decided not to accept them and left. No contract
could have been formed and this is simply a dispute over a
contractual matter.
Whilst it is a weak argument in your case because you have
already blabbed about why you were there and for how long, it
could still be argued that without evidencing a "period of
parking", it cannot be proved that a contract was formed with
the driver.
It's a technicality, but a useful one, as long as you don't go
throwing away all your cards by giving the operator all the
evidence they need to hold you liable.
Have a search of the forum for other POPLA appeals to see how
they are laid out and argued.
#Post#: 70077--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hospital car park PCN - child's outpatient appointment
DIR By: pharmchick
Date: May 5, 2025, 1:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks all! I will keep you all updated on the outcome for
future learning for others.
#Post#: 70086--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hospital car park PCN - child's outpatient appointment
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: May 5, 2025, 2:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Back to the substance pl.
The Notice to Keeper states:
(your vehicle) 'was observed at 13.34 breaching the terms..'
Their rejection repeats the above.
You say: 'One discrepancy that I also noticed on the ticket is
that it stated the event time as 13:34 meanwhile I was no longer
at the hospital at that time because I paid for only 1 hour of
parking (pay on exit) meaning I would have left at 1pm.'
'Would have' left or had left?
Where is your evidence i.e. your record of payment with parking
rights expiring at ..... [ before 13.34]??
Their NTK photos are timed at 12.03, 90 minutes before the
alleged breach!
Can we get to grips with this 'discrepancy' please.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page