ParkingEye ticket |
ParkingEye ticket |
Thu, 7 Dec 2017 - 18:52
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 30 Joined: 8 Feb 2015 Member No.: 75,611 |
Evening all
I hope you are well Needing a bit advice about the nice letter that's dropped through my letterbox today please! ParkingEye ticket Having had a look on Google street view there's nothing jumping out at me. Is there anything that can be done due to poor/lack of signage? Many thanks in advance for your help Best wishes, https://ibb.co/diP2hw This post has been edited by Chris789: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 - 12:02 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Thu, 7 Dec 2017 - 18:52
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Fri, 6 Apr 2018 - 05:21
Post
#41
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 30 Joined: 8 Feb 2015 Member No.: 75,611 |
Morning all
I have good news to report! The POPLA decision came through late last night - they’ve upheld my appeal! All boiled down to ParkingEye failing to supply the required hire documents as per POFA. They noted that none of these had been provided in PE’s ‘evidence pack’, confirming they had never been sent to the hirer So by submitting the evidence pack, they sealed their own fate... at their own expense too. I’d like to say how thankful and grateful I am for all your help throughout. If you’d like me to upload the POPLA assessor’s response or post a win story let me know! Best wishes, |
|
|
Fri, 6 Apr 2018 - 07:54
Post
#42
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 96 Joined: 9 Nov 2016 Member No.: 88,346 |
The POPLA decision came through late last night - they’ve upheld my appeal! All boiled down to ParkingEye failing to supply the required hire documents as per POFA. We should have your quote in big flashing letters for people who don't understand why people on here asking very pointed questions. Well done OP, it's clear that your attention to detail and research have helped you win this. (Of course, well done to all who helped too!). If you’d like me to upload the POPLA assessor’s response or post a win story let me know! I think etiquette round here is to add the assessor's response, and then link from 'completed case summaries'. -------------------- I'm not a lawyer or legally trained, my opinion is based on my experience - follow at your own risk.
|
|
|
Sun, 8 Apr 2018 - 23:47
Post
#43
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 18,751 Joined: 20 Sep 2009 Member No.: 32,130 |
|
|
|
Mon, 9 Apr 2018 - 08:12
Post
#44
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 30 Joined: 8 Feb 2015 Member No.: 75,611 |
Here we go, the full POPLA response:
Decision: Successful Assessor Name: Lauren Bailey Assessor summary of operator case The operator’s case is that the appellant exceeded the maximum stay. Assessor summary of your case The appellant’s case is that the vehicle is a hire vehicle. The appellant stated that the operator has not adhered to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The appellant questioned if the operator has the authority to issue parking charges on the land in question. The appellant stated that the signage at the site is not sufficient. Assessor supporting rational for decision The appellant has not declared the name of the driver. Therefore, I must ensure that the operator has issued the parking charge in accordance with the provisions set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012). PoFA 2012. Schedule 4 paragraph 14 (1) of PoFA 2012 states that: “If – (a) The creditor is by virtue of paragraph 13(2) unable to exercise the right to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges mentioned in the notice to keeper, and (b) The conditions mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) below are met, The creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer.” It then goes on to state under paragraph 14 (2) that: “The conditions are that – (a) The creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper” The documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2), referred to in the above excerpt, are: “(2) … (a) a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b) a copy of the hire agreement; and © a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement” I have reviewed the evidence provided by the operator. I cannot see a copy of a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement, a copy of the hire agreement, or a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. As these documents have not been provided to me in the body of evidence supplied by the operator, I am not able to consider that they have been provided to the appellant in accordance with the provisions set out in PoFA 2012. As a result, I am not satisfied that the provisions set out in PoFA 2012 have been met for the purposes of transferring liability for unpaid parking charges from the keeper to the hirer of the vehicle. I note that the appellant has raised further grounds for appeal, however as I have allowed the appeal on this basis, I have disregarded them. Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed. I cannot say how grateful I am for all your expert advice in helping me overturn this 'invoice'. You all do such a great job donating your time to help people out with these types of matters and it is really appreciated! |
|
|
Mon, 9 Apr 2018 - 09:00
Post
#45
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,126 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,238 |
Good result
ParkingEye only has itself to blame The British Parking Association came to an arrangement with the BVRLA (the hire companies' trade association) that it would be sufficient to provide the hirer's details to discharge liability as registered keeper This private arrangement doesn't trump the clear wording of POFA What's shameful is that ParkingEye still tried it on instead of No-contesting the appeal They clearly believe that the majority of assessors don't require following Para 14(2) to the letter |
|
|
Mon, 9 Apr 2018 - 09:34
Post
#46
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 30 Joined: 8 Feb 2015 Member No.: 75,611 |
Good result ParkingEye only has itself to blame The British Parking Association came to an arrangement with the BVRLA (the hire companies' trade association) that it would be sufficient to provide the hirer's details to discharge liability as registered keeper This private arrangement doesn't trump the clear wording of POFA What's shameful is that ParkingEye still tried it on instead of No-contesting the appeal They clearly believe that the majority of assessors don't require following Para 14(2) to the letter Completely agree Plus it would have cost them to contest the appeal so it really did come back to bite them! |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 01:08 |