My mum Vs Parking Eye and Highview

[Smasher]

Hi guys,

I have a couple of these bloomin things to deal with for my mum now. I used to get a few of them on my work van, but I just sent the letter from MSE & never heard any more, but now since Beavis Vs Butthead, the one from Highview is with DRP collections and she got a new one today from Parking Eye.

Highview:
This was an overstay at argos in Watford in a hired car from Enterprise. They also charged her card £35 admin fee for having to pass on her data! I sent the MSE letter, but because of the time between them writing to enterprise, them informing us and us responiding, it's on with their collections team DRP. I sent the MSE letter to DRP and they have responded citing the Beavis case. So what is best play for this now? Its up to £120.00

Parking Eye:
My mum visited my dad in hospital last week, he was there with pnumonia. She paid £6.00.
I don't have this one to hand, so I don't know the exact times, so I'll get it off her in the morning.
I think she was there from around 13:30 - 17:30. I do know that there was a 6 minute gap between the time stamp on the camera and the time stamped on her ticket, so maybe that's the 'overstay' they're stinging her for. I'll get the proper details tomorrow. They want £60.00

At the moment, she stands to lose £180.00, she's concerned about getting into a whole court case which will surely happen now whilst we wait for this appeal result. Me, I wanna fight these bloomin rip off merchants as ever, but I gotta do what's best for mum. What do you guys reckon?

[mystery1]

Re: My mum Vs Parking Eye and Highview

What is the MSE letter ? (i know what MSE is)

Highview.

Do they know who was driving ?

Do you still have the hire agreement ? What does it say about fines etc ?



Parking eye.

Probably appeal.


Both.

POst up the notices and signs (if you can).



I think we'll get away with some emails, online appeals and no money but need details to confirm and form a proper strategy. Might even get the admin back too.

M1

[Kati]

Re: My mum Vs Parking Eye and Highview

What is the MSE letter ? (i know what MSE is)

Could be these (http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/rec...321.1392656253) ... there are at least three templates on that page

[Smasher]

Re: My mum Vs Parking Eye and Highview

Thanks M1

I sent this letter (in blue text, you'll need to scroll a bit..)

The hire agreement does have a clause that they will charge an admin fee if they get parking tickets on the car. Highview do not know who was driving the car. My mum actually insured me on it too because sometimes I drive her or my dad. I was careful to edit the letter to say "as the hirer of the car" and never say who was driving.

I'll get the info for Parking eye later.

Thanks

[mystery1]

Re: My mum Vs Parking Eye and Highview

Well sending that to DRP is a waste of time. At least you didn't tell them who was driving

Obviously the keeper would be out of time to appeal though

M1

[Smasher]

Re: My mum Vs Parking Eye and Highview

Ok, so I guess we're paying that one then? :/ Altho the registered keeper is Enterprise..

I'll get the paperwork for this new one later and make a start on the appeal today.

[mystery1]

Re: My mum Vs Parking Eye and Highview

I wouldn't. If they've screwed up keeper liability then they're up the creek. It's just that rather than being able to appeal and deal with it now you have to wait and see if they take court action (probably they won't) and defend the charge on keeper liability and the other arguments. The charge would ultimately be statute barred after 6 years unless court action was taken.

Keeper and regsitered keeper can be different. A hire vehicle is not always driven by the hirer.

M1

[Smasher]

Re: My mum Vs Parking Eye and Highview

OK thanks for the advice.

If they do make a claim tho, we do run the risk of these parking companies winning the legal right to charge, in which case, we could be looking at more than double. Altho I would be happy to risk a week's wages myself to make a fight of it!

This is the highview charge. I'll get the Parking Eye details when she finished work..

[mystery1]

Re: My mum Vs Parking Eye and Highview

Well if they take the keeper to court and haven't complied with the law then they are going to struggle to win regardless of how lawful the charge against the driver is/was.

M1

[Smasher]

Re: My mum Vs Parking Eye and Highview

Just reading this back.
When Enterprise informed Highview that my mum was the hirer, wouldnt that have been the registered keeper's appeal?

[mystery1]

Re: My mum Vs Parking Eye and Highview

No. That's not an appeal just an exchange of information. If it's too late to appeal just keep everything in case they do take further action.

PoFA 2012 schedule 4 for hirers


Hire vehicles


13(1)This paragraph applies in the case of parking charges incurred in respect of the parking of a vehicle on relevant land if—
(a)the vehicle was at the time of parking hired to any person under a hire agreement with a vehicle-hire firm; and
(b)the keeper has been given a notice to keeper within the relevant period for the purposes of paragraph 8(4) or 9(4) (as the case may be).
(2)The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given—
(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
(c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.
(3)The statement of liability required by sub-paragraph (2)(c) must—
(a)contain a statement by the hirer to the effect that the hirer acknowledges responsibility for any parking charges that may be incurred with respect to the vehicle while it is hired to the hirer;
(b)include an address given by the hirer (whether a residential, business or other address) as one at which documents may be given to the hirer;(and it is immaterial whether the statement mentioned in paragraph (a) relates also to other charges or penalties of any kind).
(4)A statement required by sub-paragraph (2)(a) or (c) must be in such form (if any) as may be prescribed by the appropriate national authority by regulations made by statutory instrument.
(5)The documents mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) must be given by—
(a)handing them to the creditor;
(b)leaving them at any address which is specified in the notice to keeper as an address at which documents may be given to the creditor or to which payments may be sent; or
(c)sending them by post to such an address so that they are delivered to that address within the period mentioned in that sub-paragraph.
(6)In this paragraph and paragraph 14—
(a)“hire agreement” means an agreement which—
(i)provides for a vehicle to be let to a person (“the hirer”) for a period of any duration (whether or not the period is capable of extension by agreement between the parties); and
(ii)is not a hire-purchase agreement within the meaning of the Consumer Credit Act 1974;
(b)any reference to the currency of a hire agreement includes a reference to any period during which, with the consent of the vehicle-hire firm, the hirer continues in possession of the vehicle as hirer, after the expiry of any period specified in the agreement but otherwise on terms and conditions specified in it; and
(c)“vehicle-hire firm” means any person engaged in the hiring of vehicles in the course of a business.
14(1)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.
(2)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;
(b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed; and
(c)the vehicle was not a stolen vehicle at the beginning of the period of parking to which the unpaid parking charges relate.
(3)In sub-paragraph (2)(a) “the relevant period” is the period of 21 days beginning with the day after that on which the documents required by paragraph 13(2) are given to the creditor.
(4)For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(c) a vehicle is to be presumed not to be a stolen vehicle at the material time, unless the contrary is proved.
(5)The notice to hirer must—
(a)inform the hirer that by virtue of this paragraph any unpaid parking charges (being parking charges specified in the notice to keeper) may be recovered from the hirer;
(b)refer the hirer to the information contained in the notice to keeper;
(c)warn the hirer that if, after the period of 21 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to hirer is given, the amount of unpaid parking charges referred to in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)(f) or 9(2)(f) (as the case may be) has not been paid in full, the creditor will (if any applicable requirements are met) have the right to recover from the hirer so much of that amount as remains unpaid;
(d)inform the hirer of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available;
(e)identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment may be made; and
(f)specify the date on which the notice is sent (if it is sent by post) or given (in any other case).
(6)The documents mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)(a) must be given by—
(a)handing them to the hirer;
(b)leaving them at an address which is either—
(i)an address specified in the statement of liability mentioned in paragraph 13(2)(c) as an address at which documents may be given to the hirer; or
(ii)an address at which documents relating to civil proceedings could properly be served on the hirer under Civil Procedure Rules; or
(c)sending them by post to such an address so that they are delivered to that address within the relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(a).
(7)In sub-paragraph (5)(d) the reference to arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints includes—
(a)any procedures offered by the creditor for dealing informally with representations by the hirer about the notice or any matter contained in it; and
(b)any arrangements under which disputes or complaints (however described) may be referred by the hirer to independent adjudication or arbitration.



I seriously doubt they complied properly so the keeper (as opposed to the registered keeper) cannot be held liable. The hire company can only know who got the keys and not who was driving at any particular time. This is an argument for court.


M1

[Smasher]

Re: My mum Vs Parking Eye and Highview

Ah ok, so according to this, highview are supposed to chase Enterprise for the charge and Enterprise then have to chase us? Highview can't really chase us directly for the charge?

[mystery1]

Re: My mum Vs Parking Eye and Highview

No.

Highview chase Enterprise and they say we were not the keeper xxx was. Then they chase xxx. xxx at this stage is just the keeper unless they admit to driving. To chase xxx as keeper they must follow the rules laid out in the protection of freedoms act 2012 schedule 4 para 13. If they haven't then they can only chase the driver who they do not know and may or may not be xxx.

From the statute

• “registered keeper”, in relation to a registered vehicle, means the person in whose name the vehicle is registered;
  
  
  • “keeper” means the person by whom the vehicle is kept at the time the vehicle was parked, which in the case of a registered vehicle is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to be the registered keeper;
    
    M1

[Smasher]

Re: My mum Vs Parking Eye and Highview

Ah I see, ok thanks.
So that makes my mum the 'keeper' at this time then. Pretty good job she insured me aswell, because it could have been either one of us, or a phantom joyrider..