Ilford retail park - Parking eye issue Options

[525-joe]

Hi all,

I have received this parking charge around a month ago (have been out of the country) for apparently not paying for parking.

The rules of the carpark are that the first 2 hours are free and thereafter you must purchase a ticket. A ticket was purchased around 16:15 but I can't be certain what time it was but i do know that a few cars were parked on that day and purchased tickets for them all at the same time and only this car got a ticket. I thought all was fine until I got this through the post (attached).

Now I'm not sure exactly what this fine relates to but I no longer have the ticket as I assumed all was fine. Am I stuck now and have to pay this?

[attachment=53048:20180123_102956.jpg]

[attachment=53049:BlurImag..._11_3_31.jpg]

This post has been edited by 525-joe: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 15:40

[Advertisement]

[Dave65]

This is not a "fine" only asking for money.

Date of event 16-12-2017
Date of issue 12-01-2018

This has not been delivered within 14 days to claim keeper liability.

This will be killed at Popla.

Other will follow with advice.

[Jlc]

This has not been delivered within 14 days to claim keeper liability.

Look closely at the back - the 14 days doesn't apply here.

...but having said that it's likely still not compliant and POPLA should agree if the protocol hasn't been followed correctly.

This post has been edited by Jlc: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 12:20

[s360]

Op, can you confirm if this was a hire car? if so have Parking eye supplied the lease/hire agreement and other supporting documentation as per POFA with the notice? I'm guessing not. If not then it should be an easy win at popla as it wont adhere to the requirements of POFA (section 14 i think). Search the forum for lease car cases.

This post has been edited by s360: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 12:46

[ostell]

AND EDIT THAT FIRST POST so that the identity of the driver can not be inferred! Use "the driver....." etc.

Probably another 14 (2) win so don't turn victory into defeat

This post has been edited by ostell: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 15:01

[Dave65]

Jic - Spotted that paragraph about lease car, just the OP didn`t mention it on original post.
Thanks for pointing out, just learning the ropes.

This post has been edited by Dave65: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 15:13

[525-joe]

Op, can you confirm if this was a hire car? if so have Parking eye supplied the lease/hire agreement and other supporting documentation as per POFA with the notice? I'm guessing not. If not then it should be an easy win at popla as it wont adhere to the requirements of POFA (section 14 i think). Search the forum for lease car cases.

Hey guys, sorry I should have mentioned this. Yes it was a lease/finance car and the lease company received the initial notice prior to 28/12/2017. I'll have a look for lease cases but on initial viewing I think it meets the 14 day rule?

This post has been edited by 525-joe: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 15:48

[kommando]

Parking eye supplied the lease/hire agreement and other supporting documentation as per POFA with the notice?

You need to answer all the questions, they are asked for a reason.

So if it was a lease car as well as the NTK did they also include the hire info that should have been sent to the PE by the lease company.

We know the answer but need for you to confirm.

[ostell]

So look at POFA, here's the link, particular paragraph 14 and most definitely 14 (2) (a), as mentioned previously. Are all the required documents included with the NTK you received?

[s360]

Op, can you confirm if this was a hire car? if so have Parking eye supplied the lease/hire agreement and other supporting documentation as per POFA with the notice? I'm guessing not. If not then it should be an easy win at popla as it wont adhere to the requirements of POFA (section 14 i think). Search the forum for lease car cases.

Hey guys, sorry I should have mentioned this. Yes it was a lease/finance car and the lease company received the initial notice prior to 28/12/2017. I'll have a look for lease cases but on initial viewing I think it meets the 14 day rule?

Yes it will probably meet the deadline but that doesn't matter now. Your winning points at POPLA will now, (hopefully), be the lack of required additional documentation as per the link Ostell has supplied.

[525-joe]

Oh sorry. No the only document I received is the attached letter. They have not included copies of the hire agreement or the other items mentioned in POFA but they just mentioned that they have seen it (top of the second page of the attached).

What would be the next step?

[s360]

Follow the link posted by Ostell above and read through POFA, specifically sections 9 and more so for you, Section 14. Them stating they have seen the docs is no good they must be provided to you along with the NTK as per section 14. Not doing so negates their ability to recover from the hirer. Also as mentioned read around for past examples of lease car cases and section 14 appeals to POPLA. The first appeal to Parking eye needs to just point out the basic failings, and as such their inability to now recover from yourself. No need to go into too much detail and no need to identify the driver as they will likely just reject. In doing so they will (must) provide a popla code where you can flesh out the appeal a bit more and should hopefully get a straight forward win.

[ostell]

Search for BOGOFF appeals that involve hire cars and lack of documents, there's quite a few around.

[525-joe]

Thanks guys - I found something here which has also helped

http://forums.pepipoo.com/lofiversion/index.php/t108361.html

In regards to the link Ostell provided of POFA, is there a risk that if I respond to this, say today, that parkingeye reissue the NTH together with the documents before the 21 days? Or shall I wait to appeal?

[nosferatu1001]

Well as long as you CAN wait to appeal, you may as well

However we have never known a PPC actually get the required documents anyway, as they agreed with teh BVRLA that they wouldnt ask for them - of course, entirely missing that this means they can never hold the hirer liable.

Its all about numbers, its too expensive to do it formally, they just hope you will pay up.

[ostell]

The relevant period to issue the NTH is 21 days from the receipt of the documents from the hire company, 14 (2) (a), so send it to arrive 21 days from the date of issue of notice to hirer. They then can't resend within the relevant period.

They must have had the documents in their hands on the 12th Jan to be able to issue the NTH so send the rejection of their demand so that would arrive February 1st or 2nd.

This post has been edited by ostell: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 - 13:20

[525-joe]

Thanks. Is it better to appeal via post or the online method? Or does it not matter as long as I keep relevant evidence (ie copies/screenshots) of the appeal letter?

[ostell]

It matters not one jot as long as you have, and keep, evidence of the submission. Take care on line as there may be a drop down that defaults to the driver making the appeal. Make sure it is showing Keeper.

[nosferatu1001]

appeal online. Not worth wasting a stamp, and no excuse that they "lost" the appela
Just check your junk email for responses...

[cabbyman]

But......If you appeal by post, send first class with a certificate of posting from the Post Office. NEVER signed for/registered/recorded. They can refuse to sign for it and, therefore, it is not delivered.