HI,

I have received what appears to be a second letter from Parkingeye. This is genuinely the first I correspondance I have received from them however they make refernce to a previous letter. It is in relation to Rheidol car park in Aberystwyth which is a retail park, free apparently for only two hours.

In the letter PE state that: ' On date (A) we notified you that as the rok of this vehicle you had become liable for this pcn which concerned a breach of t's & c's at Rheidol retail park on date (B). This was because reqirements of schedule 4 POFA 2012 required for keeper liability had been satisfied....blah..blah..£85.00 blah...blah..'

However, the letter is addressed to the rok not the driver (me). The rok is registered disabled and only partially sighted. There was no pcn issued on the day. So on that issue, date (A) in their letter and date of alleged breach , date (B) is a time difference in excess of 48 days.

I may be wrong so I welcome any input but I thought PE have to Ntk within 14 days of the so called breach, according to their association rules.

Should I in the first instance invite them to send copies of all previous correspondance because I don't even know the details of this alleged breach or should the rok respond that they were not the driver at the time and that due to their (PE) own tardiness this is the end of the matter [color="#FF0000"][/color]?

..or C none of the above :-) ?

The 14 days is the time between the alleged parking event (call it date ©) and date (A). I.e. is date (A) - date © less than 14 days? If it is, then that
part of PoFA is satisfied. Date (B) - Date (A) is not really relevant. The fact you didn't receive the first letter (date (A) does add a bit of a complication, though)


Edit: Sorry what I have written is rubbish.

But aren't they saying in their 2nd letter that the dates between their first letter (which was not received) and the incident is more than 48 days anyway? So by their own written admission, they've missed the deadline?

Or have I understood that wrong?

No, it's me who has got it wrong. As you were.

The well known Rheidol scam.

We have one of theirs in the family currently sitting in POPLA's 3 month queue.

Where in the car park was the car parked?


Regardless I would appeal on the basis of signage, pre-estimate not representing losses and also the equality act (if the BB holder was in the car), get the POPLA code.

Hi Thankyou for such a fast response.

I can not remember where I parked. I only mentioned the disabled part to give emphasis that the rok could not drive even if they wanted to.

My thoughts on asking for all previous correspondance was to check that there was indeed no other Ntk on some earlier date. I'm worried that something was put on the car then possibly removed by persons unknown. Can someone advise Is that practice for that retail park to issue pcn on the vehicle at the time?

It seems that my thoughts on the 14 day limit are correct so I think I will request a copy of all previous correspondance and then when they have committed themselves ( providing they don't pull anything else out of the hat ) I can advise them of the situation and if needs be then appeal on multiple grounds as mentioned in this thread and also in line with this popla appeal adjudication which I found yesterday but can not retrace my steps, sorry.

The post went thus :
" Here is the text from my POPLA appeal result:


XXXX (Appellant)
-v-
ParkingEye Ltd (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXX/XXX arising out of the presence at Rheidol Retail Park, on XX 2012, of a vehicle with registration mark XXX XXX.

The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.

The Assessor considered the evidence of both parties and determined that the appeal be allowed.

The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.

The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.


Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

On XX December 2012 the Operator’s automatic number plate recognition system (‘ANPR’) observed a XXX with the registration mark XXX XXX at Rheidol Retail Park. On XX December 2012 the Operator issued a parking charge notice (‘PCN’).

The Operator submits that it was an adequately advertised condition of parking at the site that parking was free for a maximum of 2 hours, no return within 1 hour. The terms advised that failure to comply may lead to the issuing of a PCN. The Operator’s ANPR system observed the Appellant’s vehicle enter the site at 09:59 and exit at 12:10, a stay of 2 hours and 11 minutes. Accordingly, the vehicle had overstayed by 11 minutes and the Operator issued a PCN for breach of the aforementioned condition. The Operator’s evidence includes copies of site signs and their locations throughout the site.

The Appellant submits that she is not liable for the parking charge because:

1. The Operator has failed to adequately identify the creditor to whom the parking charge is due as required by the Protection of Freedoms Act;

2. The Notice to Keeper was not received within the maximum 14 day period from the date of the alleged breach. Specifically, the alleged breach occurred on XX December 2012 and the Notice to Keeper was received 16 days later on XX January 2013;

3. The Operator does not have authority to contract with the Appellant at the site in question. The Appellant requires proof of ownership of the land or any contract from the land owner providing such authority;

4. The Operator did not specify the reasonable period permitted for the Appellant to leave the land after the end of the contract prior to taking enforcement action;

5. The Appellant’s vehicle was not ‘parked’ in excess of the maximum stay period within the meaning of the terms and conditions;

6. The parking charge exceeded the appropriate amount.


Taking into consideration all the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that the Operator has proven this breach for the following reasons.

In Paragraph 46 of the Decision in VCS v HMRC it states:

VCS is permitted under the contract [with the landowner] to collect and retain all fees and charges from parking enforcement action

Membership of the Approved Operator Scheme does require the parking company to have clear authorisation from the landowner, if itself is not the landowner, as to their role in relation to the parking control and enforcement. This is set out in the BPA Code of Practice. However, as with any issue, if the point is specially raised by an appellant in an appeal, then the operator should address it by producing such evidence as they believe refutes a submission that they have no authority.

In response to such a point, the Operator stated that “we have written authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices at this site from the landowner (or landowner’s agent).” The Appellant had requested that a copy of the contract between the land owner and the Operator be provided. The Operator has not provided a copy of this contract or any other proof tantamount to the same. I therefore find that the Operator has failed on this occasion to adequately rebut the Appellant’s submission that it does not have the necessary authority to enforce the parking charge.

I have allowed the appeal on this ground and therefore do not need to visit the Appellant’s remaining grounds of appeal.

Taking these matters together the PCN was not properly issued.

The appeal is allowed.

Matthew Shaw
Assessor


Thankyou for your help thus far.

Parking Eye do not issue manual tickets at the Rheidol Retail Park Aberystwyth - it is all done via ANPR with NtKs sent through the post to the RK

Thank you very much for that