Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: mattj on October 21, 2024, 01:11:58 pm
-
Thank you.
I think it's fair to say that the driver was not spending 2 hours just perusing the middle aisle in Lidl... That's not to say they didn't shop in there, but I think it would be a tough one to suggest they were in there for 2 hours. That being said, I am only speaking with the keeper, not the driver. It is equally possible that the car exited and re-entered, Neither I not the keeper could answer that.
It might be interesting to test the validity of the "invitation to pay" in court. The general consensus seems to be that any error will render the PCN unenforceable, but without case law, it's not perhaps possible to say.
There is only 1 Lidl, but with a large ASDA next door, the car parks tend to be used interchangeably, and have walkways between them. Again, if the address is in any way unclear, could it be a breach of PoFA and lead to the case being thrown out?
Regarding the photo evidence, all Parking Eye have produced is a photo of a VRN and some lights. There's no indication as to where the photo was taken, what the vehicle is or any signage that would have been in view, particularly at night.
Looking at the streetmap photos from 2023, one entrance has good, visible signage, but the other does not, as it is set away from the entrance, unlit and not visible until the car has turned well into the car park itself. I will have a mooch around the car park when I am next in town and take a look at the rest of the signage.
-
Before we get onto any technical points - have Lidl been approached? Assuming the driver was a genuine customer and not simply chancing their arm on some free parking on private land, then speaking to the management of the store (ideally bringing along a receipt for their shopping on the day) may yield a positive result.
As you note, ParkingEye can be pretty litigious so it's worth your friend being aware that he might need to be prepared for this to go all the way to court if he is determined to fight.
Document does not appear to be PoFa compliant, as it does not invite the Keeper to pay.
This is indeed one argument - I'm not sure if we've seen any cases that have gone to court solely on this point, and as such it's hard to offer any concrete insight as to how successful it would be on its own without other sound defence grounds.
I note that the address is unclear, as there are 3 car parks surrounding the store, accessible from 2 different roads and 3 routes, so failure to identify the specific car park would seem to be an issue.
Can you explain what you mean here? I'm not familiar with the area, but there only appears to be one car park that could be considered to belong to the Lidl that I could see on the map. Is there more than one Lidl in Grantham? If so, this would certainly strengthen the point.
The picture appears to be of just a number plate and a pair of head / tail lights. Not sure how that would constitute "evidence" that the vehicle entered or exited the car park as alleged.
The immediate question is - was the vehicle there at the times alleged? If so, then this argument is probably a non-starter. The photos would seem to be clear enough to capture the vehicle registration mark. Whilst it is the claimant's job to prove their case, rather than your friend's job to disprove it, in the absence of any evidence to dispute the vehicle's whereabouts, a judge would likely conclude that on the balance of probabilities the vehicle was there at the alleged date and times.
There's some time yet before the appeal deadline, so I would try contacting Lidl 'Plan A' before firing anything off to ParkingEye.
-
https://imgur.com/a/fHVpHSp
Good day to you all. PCN in the link above (Hopefully...)
I am looking at this on behalf of an elderly friend.
Keeper received PCN from Parking Eye for allegedly overstaying in "Lidl Grantham"
Document does not appear to be PoFa compliant, as it does not invite the Keeper to pay. I note that the address is unclear, as there are 3 car parks surrounding the store, accessible from 2 different roads and 3 routes, so failure to identify the specific car park would seem to be an issue.
The picture appears to be of just a number plate and a pair of head / tail lights. Not sure how that would constitute "evidence" that the vehicle entered or exited the car park as alleged.
I gather that Parking Eye are known to be somewhat litigious, so I want to get this right.
How should I structure the initial letter to them, such that any wiggle room is squashed before the gets to the inevitable POPLA appeal?
I do have an email giving me permission to act on behalf of my friend in this matter.
My thoughts are that I should state that I do not believe the PCN to be compliant - Non-compliance with PoFA (Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i)) failure to invite keeper to pay, and that as such the keeper cannot be held liable. I will further mention the poor evidence and address details.
I think there's a few letter templates on here, which I will re-use, but am I missing anything important?
Many thanks in advance.