CANCELLED - parking eye fine

[mystery1]

Re: parking eye fine

We have just had a reply back from the company she worked for, is it right that we have to wait for POPLAs decision? this is the response i got back from her employers:

Thank you for providing the requested further information.

Having contacted ParkingEye we have been advised that until POPLA have reached a verdict, neither they nor ourselves would be able to take any further action.

Once their decision has been made, should this not be in your favour, please do let us know and we will again look at the matter once more for you. We have however been notified that POPLA are currently working on a turnaround of up to four weeks.

I am sorry we cannot currently help any further however, I hope this information helps.

well POPLAs decision is unbelievably UNSUCCESSFUL. What now?

Contact Farmfoods and see what they say now.

Other than that it's time to decide whether to pay or ignore and see if they chance court.

M1

[baileys mum]

Re: parking eye fine

We have done. But we are totally stunned that they rejected it. We copied everything in that you had said, added the fact that they had been informed it was someone else using the car but they were still chasing me, mentioned that PE hadnt checked for her registration on the safe list, told them Farmfoods wanted to try to deal with the matter, etc., and also said we wanted to attach Farmfoods emails as evidence and for them to advise where we can send them to, and they still rejected it. Are POPLA independant or in their pockets?

[mystery1]

Re: parking eye fine

The problem was much of it was raised in response to the operators evidence and you're not really meant to do it like that so they probably ignored it.

M1

[baileys mum]

Re: parking eye fine

what do you mean?

[mystery1]

Re: parking eye fine

When you appeal to popla, as you did before coming here, that is essentially your argument. The operator replies and then you can comment on their reply.

Commenting on their reply is different to adding to your appeal as we tried. If the assessor was asleep it may have got through but it didn't.

M1

[baileys mum]

Re: parking eye fine

Commenting on their reply is different to adding to your appeal as we tried. If the assessor was asleep it may have got through but it didn't.

M1

I still don't understand what you mean. Are you saying they dont read the final response?

[mystery1]

Re: parking eye fine

That's not what i said at all, although it might not be far from the truth.

What i said was that you are not supposed to introduce new arguments in such a way.

M1

[baileys mum]

Re: parking eye fine

that may be their rules, but until we saw their evidence how could we respond to it beforehand? the fact still remained that they were informed someone else had the car but they still pursued me, even on that point, how could they rule for PE. makes no sense whatsoever

[baileys mum]

Re: parking eye fine

we have just had this reply from farmfoods: Thank you for your further email.

Unfortunately, as previously mentioned, whilst the charge can now be cancelled by ParkingEye, there will be a charge of £60 for this to be processed.

Should this be acceptable, I will inform ParkingEye of this who will arrange for the necessary paper work to be completed and sent.

[baileys mum]

Re: parking eye fine

we have just been told by someone with a little legal knowledge that if we hadnt responded at all to PE it wouldve just gone away, but now that weve appealed we have accepted responsibility, even though someone else was driving, and if we dont pay, PE will take us to court and costs will escalate. is this correct?

Is there any way possible to get out of this now without paying? we are still gobsmacked that that POPLA went in their favour. thanks

[mystery1]

Re: parking eye fine

we have just been told by someone with a little legal knowledge that if we hadnt responded at all to PE it wouldve just gone away,

Well the little legal knowledge they have must consist of the location of their nearest court is. Barry Beavis ignored, that didn't end too well. https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0116.html

but now that weve appealed we have accepted responsibility

Do they drink lots of herbal tea ?

Is there any way possible to get out of this now without paying?

Ignore all bar a court claim or letter before action and hope they never come.

You could also name the drive which stops keeper liability as long as court proceedings haven't begun. (but not necessarily a court case if PE are stupid enough in the face of a complete defence for the registered keeper)

M1

[baileys mum]

Re: parking eye fine

Ignore all bar a court claim or letter before action and hope they never come.

You could also name the drive which stops keeper liability as long as court proceedings haven't begun. (but not necessarily a court case if PE are stupid enough in the face of a complete defence for the registered keeper)

M1

We did name the driver all along, including in our response to POPLA, stating that they were informed but they are still contacting me, so how are we able to do this again?

what will happen next, will we get another letter from PE before they threaten court or will it now just go to a court letter?

You havent commented about them charging £60 to cancel the fine, can they legally do this?

incidentally, not sure if this makes any difference, but the vehicle has now been sold.

[mystery1]

Re: parking eye fine

We did name the driver all along, including in our response to POPLA, stating that they were informed but they are still contacting me, so how are we able to do this again?

Saying Bob drove doesn't count.

Saying the driver was

Bob Smith
1 A Street
A town
England
aa11 1bb

is naming the driver.

what will happen next, will we get another letter from PE before they threaten court or will it now just go to a court letter?

A begging letter first of all.

You havent commented about them charging £60 to cancel the fine, can they legally do this?

It's not illegal to say give me £60 to bring the matter to an end as i've incurred costs.

incidentally, not sure if this makes any difference, but the vehicle has now been sold

Correct, it's about as relevant as what i had for my tea.

M1

[baileys mum]

Re: parking eye fine

heres the popla decision that i just found:

Decision
Unsuccessful

Assessor Name
Linsdey Rogers

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator states that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the basis that the appellant did not gain the appropriate permit or authorisation to park at the site


Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states that their daughter drove their vehicle on the day in question because theirs had broken down. The appellant explains that their daughter is an employee on site and has authorisation to park at the site in question.


Assessor supporting rational for decision
After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that the appellant has been identified as the driver of the vehicle in question at the time of the contravention. The operator is therefore pursuing the appellant as the registered keeper of the vehicle in this instance. For the operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle, to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012) must be adhered to. The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. As the driver of the vehicles has not been identified, the notice to keeper will need to comply with section 9 of PoFA 2012. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant The operator states that it issued the PCN on the basis that the appellant did not gain the appropriate permit or authorisation to park at the site. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the vehicle in question entering the Ainley Road service yard car park on 7 November 2015, at 9.53am and exiting at 11.46am. A total stay of one hour and 52 minutes. Additionally, the operator has provided evidence of an authorisation search for vehicle registration XXXXXXX. The evidence shows this vehicle was not authorised at the site on the day in question. The appellant states that their daughter drove their vehicle on the day in question because theirs had broken down. The appellant explains that their daughter is an employee on site and has authorisation to park at the site in question. While I note that the appellant has provided a cover letter from their daughter they have failed to submit sufficient evidence to demonstrate that their daughter had a valid permit. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage at the site in question. The signage states, “Permit holders only. This area is for the use of service vehicles and permit holders only. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a parking charge of £70.” Section 18 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice explains that signs ‘must be conspicuous and legible and written intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand’. I consider the photographic evidence to show that the Operator met the minimum standards set by the BPA. While I acknowledge the appellant’s comments, they have failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that their daughter had a valid permit. Our remit is to consider whether a driver has complied with the terms and conditions of the car park. I consider the signage at the site sufficient for the appellant to have read and understood the terms and conditions of parking. As such, from the evidence provided to me I can only conclude that the appellant has not adhered to the terms and conditions set out at the site. Therefore, I consider that the operator has issued the PCN correctly.

[mystery1]

Re: parking eye fine

Seems like a fair enough decision to be honest. The driver hasn't been identified with an address for contact. You can't say who, what, how she was authorised. I don't see anything you've told them that they should've ruled any other way.

M1