ParkingEye @ ASDA, Brighton Marina - POPLA help please!

sidvinnon · 26 May 2017 at 7:00PM

I've just checked over my photos from the evening I took them and I actually have a video taken from behind the wheel, taken by a friend in the passenger seat, obviously...it looks as though it might just show the location of the old sign being vacant, as well as showing my cars headlights not illuminating the entry sign at all as it is so high. They made a point in their response that their signs would be lit up by headlights so I can counter on that point.

I've uploaded it here: http://sendvid.com/es1gpevq

I also have a picture taken from a distance where if you look carefully it shows the current sign and you cannot see the old sign, although you really have to zoom in and it's not obvious it's not there. I've added it to the images above, with arrows pointing to the sign and lack of.

Coupon-mad · 26 May 2017 at 7:31PM

sidvinnon wrote: »

Yeah exactly that. Yes it would have been nice to show that area in my original pics, but it also now means I can prove that those signs are not there now. I presume they wouldn't have included those images had mine shown they didn't exist.

Don't show your night-time pics. They show the car park is well-lit.

Go and get a picture of the empty short poles, if the poles are still in place. Not the new green signs.

The aerial view fails to show the quarter of that car park that is under cover! The bit that is under the flyover road on the right in the aerial view, isn't shown at all. Let's just say for argument's sake your car was parked there...

Go and get a pic in the dark, of that under cover area, showing no signs in view, and tell POPLA that the aerial view fails to show that section of the car park under the road, at all. You and I both know it exists, and it IS part of the Asda car park and it is not tiny. Prove it - and use pics that show no signs in that part (angle the photos like a rogue PPC operative would, in your own favour). Their aerial photo shows that the entrance roadway has no signs dotted along it at all, so if you drove in and turned left to park under the covered bit, rather than right in the uncovered part of the site, there is nothing to show whether there were any signs there whatsoever.

I agree with your point about the unsigned WS, also, it doesn't identify which 'parking event' it relates to, nor which car. They issue dozens every day, so ''the parking event on 18th March'' means nothing.

I noticed as well, that the signs offer exemption if the driver asks an Asda colleague for longer parking time. PE have failed to evidence whether the driver did ask for an extension, as offered. The burden remains theirs to prove and they normally include a ''white list look up'' (undated and with no location on it, admittedly) but there is NO such document in this evidence pack so the car may well have been authorised by an Asda colleague. As the appellant is the keeper, they cannot know/be sure because that will only be in the personal knowledge of the unidentified driver that evening (and Asda was open, it was a Saturday night). Again, the burden was with PE to prove and they've failed to eliminate the possibility offered under their own terms.

sidvinnon · 26 May 2017 at 7:41PM

The car was actually parked in that area and always is! The route taken to the space used according to their aerial map (and in reality) only passes the entrance sign and no others related to parking. You can see that in the video too.

Coupon-mad · 26 May 2017 at 8:05PM

I didn't say it was parked in that but - I just feel you need to raise the doubt with POPLA, that the whole car park signs have NOT been shown...

I meant as keeper, you should point out every hole in their argument.

Including the argument that PE haven't shown any ''white list look up'' so have failed to evidence that the car wasn't exempted by an Asda colleague (again, I didn't say it was, or wasn't, but you are appealing as the keeper aren't you?).

PE offer extension of time but then fail to evidence the car wasn't parked under that term.

sidvinnon · 26 May 2017 at 8:13PM

Thanks. So should I mention that the car was parked in the area under the flyover or just use pics to demonstrate it is possible to park somewhere that may not have any signs, with the aerial view adding weight to this claim?

Fruitcake · 26 May 2017 at 10:31PM

sidvinnon wrote: »

Thanks. So should I mention that the car was parked in the area under the flyover or just use pics to demonstrate it is possible to park somewhere that may not have any signs, with the aerial view adding weight to this claim?

If you know for a fact that the car was parked in the undercover part, you state it and show the lack of signs to show how the driver could not have seen any, because according to parking lie themselves, there aren't any. If there were signs, they would be on the signage map, and there would be pictures of them in their evidence pack, wouldn't they?

If you are unsure where the driver parked, then you put the scammers to strict proof that the car wasn't parked there, which they can't do because they were using unfit for purpose ANPR technology.
You then use the same argument as above about the lack of signs.

Fruitcake · 26 May 2017 at 11:11PM

sidvinnon wrote: »

I've just checked over my photos from the evening I took them and I actually have a video taken from behind the wheel, taken by a friend in the passenger seat, obviously...it looks as though it might just show the location of the old sign being vacant, as well as showing my cars headlights not illuminating the entry sign at all as it is so high. They made a point in their response that their signs would be lit up by headlights so I can counter on that point.

I've uploaded it here: http://sendvid.com/es1gpevq

I also have a picture taken from a distance where if you look carefully it shows the current sign and you cannot see the old sign, although you really have to zoom in and it's not obvious it's not there. I've added it to the images above, with arrows pointing to the sign and lack of.

Again, it's a pity that video starts too late to show the two poles with/without a sign. It's also a shame the video doesn't show the final car manoeuvres where it was reversed into a parking space under the flyover, just entering the area, then parked.

It does however show that the first sign by the electrical cabinet is only in view for about 4 seconds and only the P is readable, unlike the still picture. The second sign above the 10mph speed limit sign a few seconds later cannot be read at all.

keepitlegal · 29 May 2017 at 4:15PM

Can you please make everyone aware of the outcome, I'm watching this one with interest.
Keepitlegal

sidvinnon · 2 June 2017 at 11:38AM

I've written the following as my response to the PE evidence, it's due in to POPLA today. Unfortunately I couldn't make time to go there at night time, but I did take some photos and videos in the glorious sunshine yesterday. I think this adds a bit of weight in that even in daytime with high visibility there is still insufficient/no signage in many parts of the car park.

1. Parking Eye Ltd, herein referred to as PE, have provided photos Brm17aS/s and Brm17S/s that fail to show the entrance sign that was present on the evening of 18/03/2017, instead they show a sign that did not exist then and does not exist now. The following video recorded on 01/06/2017 demonstrates this: https://vimeo.com/219986112. PE have provided no proof of the signage that was present on the evening of the event.

2. Contrary to the PE claims that 'There is sufficient ambient lighting on site' and 'As the images show, the vehicle had its headlights on. This would have rendered the signs in the car park, of which there are many, visible.' the entrance sign is not illuminated by car headlights, as can be seen in the following video recorded on 13/04/2017: https://vimeo.com/219986221

3. The driver of the vehicle parked in an area situated under the flyover road that serves as the entrance to Brighton Marina. This area has ample parking spaces. The only parking related sign that the driver passed on the route to their parking space was the insufficient entrance sign. The PE aerial 'Signage Layout Plan' confirms this, as well as the previously mentioned two videos and the following still images taken in broad daylight: http://imgur.com/a/lHAHm

4. The following images demonstrate the absence of signs in the area where the vehicle was parked: http://imgur.com/a/ObvEu. It is entirely possible for a driver to enter this area and park their car before using the 'cinema this way' tunnel to exit the car park without seeing any parking related signs and therefore being completely unaware of any restrictions in place.

5. All of the supplied PE photographs are taken in broad daylight, which do not give a fair representation of the conditions experienced by the driver on the evening of the event.

6. PE images of the signs demonstrate how small and hard to read their terms and conditions are. Many of their signs that contain the terms and conditions are placed over 10 feet high on poles with insufficient lighting afforded to them. This makes it impossible to read them without the use of a ladder and light source.

7. PE terms state that an extension to the 3 hour limit may be agreed with a customer service colleague in the store. PE have not provided evidence that the driver of the car was not given such an extension.

8. PE provide a Witness Statement that does not specify the exact event or specific vehicle that this appeal refers to. Only the date of the event is supplied which is not sufficient as there may have been multiple events involving multiple vehicles on this particular date.

9. Additionally the Witness Statement has no signature from the supposed witness, only a typed name.

10. PE have failed to respond to section 4 in the original appeal regarding signs notifying of new restrictions and obtaining advertising consent, therefore it can only be assumed that PE did not adhere to BPA rules and furthermore broke the law.

Does anyone have any last minute comments?

Thanks

keepitlegal · 2 June 2017 at 1:11PM

sidvinnon wrote: »

I've written the following as my response to the PE evidence, it's due in to POPLA today. Unfortunately I couldn't make time to go there at night time, but I did take some photos and videos in the glorious sunshine yesterday. I think this adds a bit of weight in that even in daytime with high visibility there is still insufficient/no signage in many parts of the car park.

1. Parking Eye Ltd, herein referred to as PE, have provided photos Brm17aS/s and Brm17S/s that fail to show the entrance sign that was present on the evening of 18/03/2017, instead they show a sign that did not exist then and does not exist now. The following video recorded on 01/06/2017 demonstrates this: https://vimeo.com/219986112. PE have provided no proof of the signage that was present on the evening of the event.

2. Contrary to the PE claims that 'There is sufficient ambient lighting on site' and 'As the images show, the vehicle had its headlights on. This would have rendered the signs in the car park, of which there are many, visible.' the entrance sign is not illuminated by car headlights, as can be seen in the following video recorded on 13/04/2017: https://vimeo.com/219986221

3. The driver of the vehicle parked in an area situated under the flyover road that serves as the entrance to Brighton Marina. This area has ample parking spaces. The only parking related sign that the driver passed on the route to their parking space was the insufficient entrance sign. The PE aerial 'Signage Layout Plan' confirms this, as well as the previously mentioned two videos and the following still images taken in broad daylight: http://imgur.com/a/lHAHm

4. The following images demonstrate the absence of signs in the area where the vehicle was parked: http://imgur.com/a/ObvEu. It is entirely possible for a driver to enter this area and park their car before using the 'cinema this way' tunnel to exit the car park without seeing any parking related signs and therefore being completely unaware of any restrictions in place.

5. All of the supplied PE photographs are taken in broad daylight, which do not give a fair representation of the conditions experienced by the driver on the evening of the event.

6. PE images of the signs demonstrate how small and hard to read their terms and conditions are. Many of their signs that contain the terms and conditions are placed over 10 feet high on poles with insufficient lighting afforded to them. This makes it impossible to read them without the use of a ladder and light source.

7. PE terms state that an extension to the 3 hour limit may be agreed with a customer service colleague in the store. PE have not provided evidence that the driver of the car was not given such an extension.

8. PE provide a Witness Statement that does not specify the exact event or specific vehicle that this appeal refers to. Only the date of the event is supplied which is not sufficient as there may have been multiple events involving multiple vehicles on this particular date.

9. Additionally the Witness Statement has no signature from the supposed witness, only a typed name.

10. PE have failed to respond to section 4 in the original appeal regarding signs notifying of new restrictions and obtaining advertising consent, therefore it can only be assumed that PE did not adhere to BPA rules and furthermore broke the law.

Does anyone have any last minute comments?l

Thanks

Last minute comment.
Email sean.clarke@asda.co.uk tell him your have some questions regarding parking at one of their stores, ask to be passed onto Jonjo in executive customer relations, then TELL (don't ask) Jonjo to sort this out immediately, tell him that he has been made aware that the parking signs in their car parks require advertising permission from the local planning department, tell him that Asda are jointly responsible for this permission and they are breaking the law with it, i have personally pointed this out to him.
Then report the matter to your council planning department, tell them they don't have advertising permission, they may try to fob you off saying permission is not required, if that happens come back on here, I will help you get the planners on your side.
I intend to carry on being a pita for Asda, I haven't finished my 'discussions' with them but when I do it's going to the press, both local and national.
I'm out of the country from tomorrow for a week or so, not sure if I'll have Internet so if I've gone quiet that's why.
Good luck.
Keepitlegal
Edit. I think it's best not to mention this site or any posts you have made on here.

ParkingEye @ ASDA, Brighton Marina - POPLA help please!

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free