'Relevant Land' PoFA 2012 - Town Quay, Southampton, Right to Persue Keeper - ParkingEye ANPR drop off bay Options

[gully]

Hi guys. A while ago my partner got a letter from Parking Eye saying a vehicle to which she is the registered keeper had exceeded the maximum stay in the pick up/drop off bays on the Town Quay pier in Southampton. As is her way with these things she ignored the letter and a couple more that followed it demanding £100. More recently she recieved a letter from a debt collection agency asking for £160 which now, somewhat more worried, she's handed over to me to deal with. This was folllowed by a "Notice of intended court action" from the same company, so I've got on the case to see how the charge holds up. Regrettably the original letters may be lost, I'm looking into that.

I've come up with a few a few potential approaches to fight it, but perhaps the most simple and compelling solution was found on this MSE thread. I wanted to get the opinion of the excellent members on this forum as to wheather this reasoning is [still] valid. If I follow correctly, the argument the OP is making is that because the area is governed by bye-laws regarding the parking of vehicles it is subject to statutory control. This therefore invalidates Parking Eye's right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper as would normally be granted by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 because Town Quay is not considered "relevant land". So Parking Eye may only persue the driver for the charges, whose identity they have no way of finding.

3(1)In this Schedule “relevant land” means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than
(a)a highway maintainable at the public expense (within the meaning of section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980);
(b)a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority;
©any land (not falling within paragraph (a) or (b)) on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control.

Ideally I'd like to use the OP's letter on that thread as a template to write my own, and challenge the charge on that point alone as it seems irrefutable. But I am very much open to advice on how to proceed.

Many thanks for taking the time to read my post, any input is greatly recieved.

[Advertisement]

[freddy1]

yes , you are correct about non relevant land , that is the reason PE have gone down the route of debt collectors , and not gone straight to court.

if you can think back far enough to the PE correspondence , was POFa mentioned , or did there seem to be a paragraph missing in the middle of the letter ,

who is the debt collection company , and after reading it again , does it clearly say "Notice of intended court action" , or that they will suggest to PE that they start court action?

"Notice of intended court action" from a debt collector is a new one , and I would like to see them attempt it

name of debt collector please ?

[Gan]

The opening "offer" of £160 from the debt collector sounds like Debt Recovery Plus

ParkingEye passes accounts to them when it doesn't intend court action

ParkingEye likes to pretend that Town Quay is relevant land but backs down when presented with a copy of the byelaws and a map

[gully]

Yes "Notice of intended court action" is a direct quote from the letter title. Can't remember anything about the original letters unfortunately. I'll upload the letters from the debt collectors soon.

[freddy1]

Yes "Notice of intended court action" is a direct quote from the letter title. Can't remember anything about the original letters unfortunately. I'll upload the letters from the debt collectors soon.

how misleading and untruthful


DRP are a member of the BPA , perhaps they should be informed of this companies new powers

[gully]

here are the two letters, which are indeed from Debt Recovery Plus.



As you suggest they have no powers would I be good just to ignore them? Or should I send Parking Eye a letter pointing out that I'm aware of the relevant land issue?

Cheers guys!

[nosferatu1001]

Ignore DRP

They dont listen to anything you write. Only if you include a cheque.

[freddy1]

here are the two letters, which are indeed from Debt Recovery Plus.



As you suggest they have no powers would I be good just to ignore them? Or should I send Parking Eye a letter pointing out that I'm aware of the relevant land issue?

Cheers guys!

we will recommend to the creditor that they start court action , not "Notice of intended court action"


1: the moment DR+ "recommend" court action , they get nothing ,, zilch and are out of pocket for the time they spent chasing you

2: PE cannot or will not start court action , as the land is non applicable and they would loose the case


if PE thought there was a chance , they would not be using DR+ , they would just go straight to court action , as in the reported cases every day



the link above is simply a debt collectors letter , file it carefully , if PE try to start court action , please return and update

[gully]

OK great, well spotted. Thanks for your help.

[nosferatu1001]

Watch out for "Zenith" turning up

Theyre DRP udner a different name

States as such at the bottom of the letters.

[gully]

Found the original Parking Eye letters. They actually say in the letters that the driver is liable and that they don't know who the driver is! Didn't notice that at the time, haha. Then go on to say that they may pass the details on to a credit referencing agency to confirm the address etc. Confirm what address if they don't know who the liable person is?




Any particular reason I need to watch out for Zenith or just to let me know they're the same company?

[cabbyman]

Zenith are the next desk. Again toothless.

That PE letter confirms that they aren't relying on PoFA, so, as long as they don't know the driver, they are bu99ered.

You could write to PE advising them that you have passed the correspondence to the driver but you are under no obligation to name them.

As they no longer have any reason to continue to hold your information, they are required to destroy it under the DPA.

Others may word it more succinctly than me.

[BikerPaul]

Ideally I'd like to use the OP's letter on that thread as a template to write my own, and challenge the charge on that point alone as it seems irrefutable. But I am very much open to advice on how to proceed.

As many here will be happy to confirm, I am the OP of the MSE thread.

I'm a lot less active in the forums now - you can goggle as to why.

However, I'm more than happy for you to use my letter as a template, it was very much a case of me fronting the work of many others, and standing up to be counted.

Edited fro Spolling Errers (Mistooks)

This post has been edited by BikerPaul: Fri, 5 Aug 2016 - 18:47

[bama]

I confirm BikerPaul's words