Tweet
Parking Eye Challenge
I've been challenging a Parking Eye Parking Charge Notice solely as the registered keeper. Parking Eye is a BPA member. The Parking Charge Notice demanded £60 (£100 if not paid within 14 days).
Here are the facts:
1. As far as I know, Parking Eye sent a Notice to Keeper to my home address, without any Notice to Driver. In it, the notice says it is unable to trace the driver/s and cannot provide any evidence of who the driver/s were.
2. Since the notice was sent 23 days after the alleged parking contravention which is outside the 14 day deadline required under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
3. So I challenged it on the basis that because it was late, the parking notice was non-compliant. They failed to follow the procedures set out in law and as the registered keeper, Parking Eye cannot not make me liable for it.
4. Parking Eye responded by not accepting my challenge - not surprising.
5. They said that the Parking Notice was not issued under the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 (******** - this is the law of the land!!!). They referred me to the BPA code of conduct to prove that under this code they were not late. They also wanted me to prove that the parking rules had not be broken.
6. My understanding is that Private Parking Companies have to rely on POFA on order to pursue the registered keeper where the driver cannot be traced. That is their only legal basis of pursuing the keeper if they want to. (Parking Eye was very clever in their response: they never stated whether I was the keeper or the driver, hoping that I would just pay up.)
7. So I countered challenged again saying that since they chose not to use POFA, then they can only pursue the driver. And since they originally admitted that they can't trace the driver, there are no legal grounds to pursue me as the keeper. I also responded that the burden of proof was Parking Eye's, and not the registered keeper to provide evidence if/when parking rules were broken.
8. In short, I told Parking Eye not to pull a fast one on me - they could not identify the driver, so stop harassing me as the registered keeper. As I'm legally not liable, I don't have to answer any of their questions.
9. Additionally, they also revealed that the car was over-parked (insufficient time purchased on a genuine ticket) but did not disclose how long it was over-parked for.
10. I added in my representation that Parking Eye also failed to demonstrate how the over-parking represented a genuine/commercially justifiable pre-estimate of their losses.
I'd appreciate any comments - and what might happen if they reject it again and I take it to POPLA. Happy to rely on those more experienced than I am.
:tinysmile_grin_t:
Headybeady
Here are the facts:
1. As far as I know, Parking Eye sent a Notice to Keeper to my home address, without any Notice to Driver. In it, the notice says it is unable to trace the driver/s and cannot provide any evidence of who the driver/s were.
2. Since the notice was sent 23 days after the alleged parking contravention which is outside the 14 day deadline required under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
3. So I challenged it on the basis that because it was late, the parking notice was non-compliant. They failed to follow the procedures set out in law and as the registered keeper, Parking Eye cannot not make me liable for it.
4. Parking Eye responded by not accepting my challenge - not surprising.
5. They said that the Parking Notice was not issued under the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 (******** - this is the law of the land!!!). They referred me to the BPA code of conduct to prove that under this code they were not late. They also wanted me to prove that the parking rules had not be broken.
6. My understanding is that Private Parking Companies have to rely on POFA on order to pursue the registered keeper where the driver cannot be traced. That is their only legal basis of pursuing the keeper if they want to. (Parking Eye was very clever in their response: they never stated whether I was the keeper or the driver, hoping that I would just pay up.)
7. So I countered challenged again saying that since they chose not to use POFA, then they can only pursue the driver. And since they originally admitted that they can't trace the driver, there are no legal grounds to pursue me as the keeper. I also responded that the burden of proof was Parking Eye's, and not the registered keeper to provide evidence if/when parking rules were broken.
8. In short, I told Parking Eye not to pull a fast one on me - they could not identify the driver, so stop harassing me as the registered keeper. As I'm legally not liable, I don't have to answer any of their questions.
9. Additionally, they also revealed that the car was over-parked (insufficient time purchased on a genuine ticket) but did not disclose how long it was over-parked for.
10. I added in my representation that Parking Eye also failed to demonstrate how the over-parking represented a genuine/commercially justifiable pre-estimate of their losses.
I'd appreciate any comments - and what might happen if they reject it again and I take it to POPLA. Happy to rely on those more experienced than I am.
:tinysmile_grin_t:
Headybeady
Comment