Parking charge - notice to keeper, Threads merged |
Parking charge - notice to keeper, Threads merged |
Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 22:25
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28 Joined: 14 Jun 2018 Member No.: 98,455 |
Hi there,
I am grateful to anyone who can offer advice and thank you to those who do this voluntarily, taking the time out of their own busy schedules! I have been sent a "Parking Charge - Notice to Keeper" from NE Parking LTD, date of sending 12th June. Reason for issue: not parked correctly within the markings of the bay. Accompanied with the letter are four photographs - 3 of my car at the same angle but progressively zoomed in, and one blurry picture of a sign. The pictures show that the rear passenger tyre rests on the white line marking of the bay but does not cross over. I am unable to find in writing what NE Parking define as "parked correctly within the bay". I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. what are my options at this stage? once again appreciate any advice regards |
|
|
Advertisement |
Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 22:25
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 22:43
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,887 Joined: 16 Jul 2015 Member No.: 78,368 |
Date of incident?
Was the PCN received within 14 days? Can you post up a copy of the PCN with all personal details redacted? |
|
|
Fri, 15 Jun 2018 - 14:30
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28 Joined: 14 Jun 2018 Member No.: 98,455 |
Date of incident 8th June.
Received within 14 days. I will try and post copy of the notice soon - thank you |
|
|
Fri, 15 Jun 2018 - 14:50
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 51 Joined: 21 Apr 2018 Member No.: 97,620 |
They appear, unsurprisingly, to be IAS members so probably no point in appealing it as it will no doubt be turned down. Suspect also there will be no definition you can find that specifies what 'parked correctly within a bay' means. No 'virtual assistant ref' here - whole of the tyre over the line and all that! The IAS appeal guidelines are deliberately vague, so looking there probably would not help either. A judge could make that assessment, but a major pain in the backside if it gets to that.
|
|
|
Fri, 15 Jun 2018 - 15:05
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,887 Joined: 16 Jul 2015 Member No.: 78,368 |
I believe there was mention by their Lordships in the Beavis case about trivial issues such as this.
|
|
|
Fri, 15 Jun 2018 - 20:35
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28 Joined: 14 Jun 2018 Member No.: 98,455 |
so bottom line is to just pay the charge? and save hassle?
|
|
|
Fri, 15 Jun 2018 - 20:39
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,088 Joined: 8 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,457 |
Perhaps a copy of the Notice to Keeper would help
|
|
|
Fri, 15 Jun 2018 - 22:42
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28 Joined: 14 Jun 2018 Member No.: 98,455 |
|
|
|
Fri, 15 Jun 2018 - 23:53
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,126 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,238 |
So bottom line is to just pay the charge? and save hassle?
NE Parking is a very disreputable company That's why it's a member of the International Parking Community, not the British Parking Association As the thread below shows, there's no such standard as "parked correctly in a bay" The vehicle in this example was entirely within the bay but still ticketed https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/ShowTopic-g18...re_England.html If the inconvenience of the letter chain is worth ÂŁ50 to bring to an end, pay the demand even if it is nothing more than extortion Remember, however, that the DVLA charges ÂŁ2-50 for NEP to access the registered keeper database Your payment will finance the applications for 20 other individuals to be hassled, most of whom will pay up without the benefit of the advice and support of this forum |
|
|
Sat, 16 Jun 2018 - 07:53
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,088 Joined: 8 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,457 |
Was this Blackpool?
I would send an appeal as the keeper to the company in that you were not outside the bay and then leave it. Don't appeal to the IAS and wait for the inevitable court case. As long as a wheel is not outside then it should be good. Look at tennis, the line is in. A judge would be likely to find this as de minimis. Does that sign state what they consider is not in the bay, probably not. I di notice that the sign on the notice is not the sign that is on display in Google Street View. You are risking the original ÂŁ100 ( the keeper is only liable for the original PCN charge) + minimal court costs ÂŁ75) It's up to you. Do you live close enough to get photos of the signs? |
|
|
Sat, 16 Jun 2018 - 20:14
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
The vehicle was not outside the bay.
|
|
|
Sat, 16 Jun 2018 - 21:43
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 901 Joined: 1 Apr 2017 Member No.: 91,235 |
Given the World Cup, perhaps an analogy is that the whole of the ball/wheel must cross the whole of the line.
In addition, surely, as it is not unknown for a vehicle to be bumped over a line by a parking company's operative, although you may be badtempered, I imagine that you are polite and refined, and that the vehicle was parked entirely with the lines when parked. This post has been edited by Eljayjay: Sat, 16 Jun 2018 - 21:43 |
|
|
Sun, 17 Jun 2018 - 18:04
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,887 Joined: 16 Jul 2015 Member No.: 78,368 |
This is a similar issue at Blackpool
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...07210&st=20 This is from a post about comments from the Beavis v Parking Eye case 27th Apr 17, 12:27 AM Sorry also, can I just check I have this section correct? Having reread this more thoroughly, I think the point I need is there but is the part about parking outside of the bay lines (highlighted in red) specific to someone else's case or is it relevant to the point and I'm not understanding correctly? 7. The claimant may try to rely upon ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, ('the Beavis case') yet ParkingEye would not have been able to recover any sum at all without 'agreement on the charge'. In the Beavis case, the ÂŁ85 charge was held to be allowable to act as a disincentive in that case only, based upon very specific and unique facts in a 'complex' case involving the existence of a specific legitimate interest from the landowners regarding turnover of parking spaces and very clear, brief and prominent signs. In fact, the Supreme Court Judges observed that it would be unfair if drivers were to be penalised for parking slightly out of bay lines when causing no obstruction (this was specifically mentioned at the hearing and was clearly not something they would have allowed). Further, it was held at the Court of Appeal that a parking charge sum of ÂŁ135 would fail the penalty rule. The authority for this is 'Parkingeye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1338 (17 October 2012) Thanks again, I appreciate all of the advice - I'm almost looking forward to the being in court part if it means all of this section will be over! This post has been edited by Dave65: Sun, 17 Jun 2018 - 18:06 |
|
|
Thu, 21 Jun 2018 - 21:08
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28 Joined: 14 Jun 2018 Member No.: 98,455 |
Hi , thanks for all the advice. Yes it was in Blackpool.
I'm going to copy and paste a letter from MSE into an email and send it off. I'm in no rush to pay this fine! |
|
|
Tue, 3 Jul 2018 - 21:30
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28 Joined: 14 Jun 2018 Member No.: 98,455 |
So I sent this email to NE parking on 21st June via the email they provide in the appeals section of the notice:
dear I am not ignoring your charge for a purported parking infraction. As this is purely a charge, issued under an alleged contract and the driver has not been identified, I require the following information so that I can make an informed decision, since I believe that the vehicle is parked correctly within the bay: 1. Who is the party that contracted with your company? I require their contact details. 2. What is the full legal identity of the landowner? 3. As you are not the landowner please provide a contemporaneous and unredacted copy of your contract with the landholder that demonstrate that you have their authority. 4. Is your charge based on damages for breach of contract? Answer yes or no. 5. If the charge is based on damages for breach of contract please provide your justification of this sum. 6. Is your charge based on a contractually agreed sum for the provision of parking? Answer yes or no. 7. If the charge is based on a contractually agreed sum for the provision of parking please provide a valid VAT invoice for this 'service’. 8. Please provide a CLEAR copy of the signs that you can evidence were on site and which you contend formed a contract with the driver on that occasion, as well as all photographs taken of this vehicle. If you believe you have a cause of action, send a Letter before Claim within the next 21 days and I will take advice and will respond. However, in my opinion, there is a better alternative than legal proceedings, namely that we utilise the services of a completely independent ADR service suited to parking charges. This does not include the IAS appeal service - which lacks any transparency and possibly any independence from the IPC - unlike the alternative offered by the British Parking Association, POPLA, which is transparent and has been shown to be independent. Do not send debt collector letters and do not add any costs or surcharges. I will not respond to such contact and to involve another firm would be a failure to mitigate your costs which are not my liability because the POFA 2012 can only potentially hold a registered keeper liable if certain provisions have been met and even then, the 'amount of the parking charge' is the only amount pursuable. 23rd June was the 14 day deadline, I have not yet had a response. Do I chase them or leave it until I get a reply? Thank you |
|
|
Tue, 3 Jul 2018 - 22:02
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,126 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,238 |
You do nothing whatsoever until/unless you receive a Letter Before Claim
Can't see what alternative ADR service there could be |
|
|
Tue, 3 Jul 2018 - 22:07
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28 Joined: 14 Jun 2018 Member No.: 98,455 |
ok thanks.
|
|
|
Sat, 11 Aug 2018 - 21:24
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28 Joined: 14 Jun 2018 Member No.: 98,455 |
I have today received this letter from Debt Collectors. I assume I can ignore this..?
Thank you in advance |
|
|
Sat, 11 Aug 2018 - 21:49
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,167 Joined: 6 Oct 2012 Member No.: 57,558 |
Yes ignore and when the next door desk sends them from Zenith too.
|
|
|
Mon, 3 Sep 2018 - 09:44
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28 Joined: 14 Jun 2018 Member No.: 98,455 |
Soo to update...I've received another debt collectors letter. Parking charge increased to 160. Also a new statement - "POPLA has reviewed this parking charge and the evidence that you provided, and ruled that the charge was legitimately issued and fully enforceable"
I assume this is nonsense.... mostly as I've not provided any evidence ! Can anyone advise what i costs i could potentially face if they do proceed with court action ? Its tickling the back of my mind. Many thanks to you all |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 01:14 |