Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hey all,

An individual was driving a rental vehicle (Enterprise) and seems to have received a PCN they shouldn't have.

The individual contacted the land owner (Hotel) of the car park and has received correspondence by email that the parking charge has been waived.

However, before that time a PCN was issued by ParkingEye to Enterprise. Enterprise have then paid for the PCN and asked the individual to reimburse them.

Now the individual has tried to go through the appeals process but as it has been formally paid for, ParkingEye is under no duress to facilitate an appeals process. Using their website Parking Eye Appeal is futile as the reference number has been flagged off of the system.
Any attempts to email them at:    appeals@parkingeye.co.uk, info@parkingeye.co.uk, enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk
has bounced back.

The simple fact that Enterprise have paid for it, has eliminated the process by which the individual can appeal to resolve the issue (and receive a POPLA code). This is incredibly frustrating.

My question is, is the only remaining course of action to send a letter in the post?
Has this worked for others?
Will all correspondence from that point on be through post, or should they contact me using details I have put down?

I'd appreciate any help in this matter.

Thank You!

No, the problem is that Enterprise did not do the correct thing, you need to take it up with them.
If they chose to pay rather than follow the process, which will have been stated on the notice, that should be their problem and they should not pass on the charge.
The correct process would have resulted in the hirer receiving a Notice to Hirer which could have been appealed.

So the individual simply has to ask Enterprise to supply a NTH?
I assume that it will still be valid given it would have been 2 weeks and under the 21 day threshold?

I also came across this thread: Enterprise car club, private parking penalty notice!.

Would you say this is directly applicable to my circumstance? They didn't seem to have much luck so I'm a little concerned.

The hirer and Enterprise are bound by the terms of the hire agreement.

So, what does it say?

The hirer and Enterprise are bound by the terms of the hire agreement.

So, what does it say?

The part that seems to be applicable is:

(xv) pay any administrative fines, fees, charges, costs, penalties, or other fines that are imposed, issued or incurred in connection with your usage of the Vehicle during the Rental Period (including usage of the Vehicle by Authorised Drivers or other third parties you permit to use the Vehicle), such as fines or fees for illegal parking or speeding, non-compliance with bus lane, congestion charges, tolls or violations of the rules of the highway or traffic offence or contravention in any country, in all cases, to the extent permitted by law and unless caused by us.

but if u/jfollows is correct, then this can't be classed as a fine and doesn't apply.
It does also mention the clause 'unless caused by us' which I imagine provides a little loop hole.

I guess it will just require a very strongly worded email that covers all bases!

It's not "illegal parking" either - it's a parking contract even if it is an invoked clause.

IMO, there is no requirement placed on a vehicle-hire RK under PoFA to provide hire agreement information to a creditor with a view to relieving themselves of liability, it's optional.

If a vehicle-hire RK chooses not to exercise their right under clause 13 of Schedule 4, then as regards PoFA they're entitled to do so.

Whether such action, in this case paying (presumably at the lower charge), is a breach of their contractual obligations or wider legal duties is IMO another matter.

OP, pl expand on 'Enterprise have then paid for the PCN and asked the individual to reimburse them.' e.g. a direct charge to an account, an invoice(which could therefore be challenged) or what?

Your first post was:

.....

An individual was driving a rental vehicle (Enterprise) and seems to have received a PCN they shouldn't have.

The individual contacted the land owner (Hotel) of the car park and has received correspondence by email that the parking charge has been waived.

IMO, I think this now needs to be examined. If the above is correct, then Enterprise's 'loss' should be made good by the person who has been paid despite 'waiving' the charge. But before you write to Enterprise, let's have these facts..and hopefully supporting evidence.