Parking Eye Appeal Rejected - Charged £100 for 16 minutes.

AndreasA wrote: »

Hi guys,

I have put their evidence sections in this google drive folder, please let me know if you are having trouble viewing it:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-FxIdUhMxIodjlBd2pTSThsRk0

Many thanks
Andreas

Right everyone! :eek:

Have a look for the mysterious disappearing/reappearing and repositioned sign that PE suggest was immediately behind the black machine on the left inside the entrance, near the CCTV sign on the wall behind it.

Look at the various photos purporting to show the situation on 30.1.15. Compare and contrast!

In two views, that sign simply is not there.

In another pic, it's there facing you at an odd height at a right angle behind the machine. Oddly blurry words/too distant/too low. Photoshopped?

In another view taken from the position where cars are parked to the right of the P&D machine, the purported sign is now not next to the machine and no longer at the right angle it was at in the pic of the machine, it now faces the parking row. Still looks photoshopped and was not likely to be the style of sign in place in Jan 2015 anyway. And is zero evidence of the signs in 2017.

And the entrance pic from 2014 shows the really old 'City Parking' Aire Street black signs on the right, low down at the entrance. This conflicts with the stock examples of the signs and the so-called aerial view of signs which are simply not there in the photos. The stock pictures don't even account for the black 'City Parking' signs - so which evidence is actually correct (if at all) is POPLA meant to guess?

All photos in the 'evidence' are ancient and misleading, possibly photoshopped (see above for the mysterious now-you-see-it, now-you-don't sign that is imagined (or not?) to be behind the P&D machine. All photos shown were taken in 2014 or January 2015, when the car park was owned by a different company altogether and the tariffs and terms were not those under the contract shown dated 1.4.16 and it is not believed that the disappearing sign was even there, so the 'evidence' appears concocted/doctored.

All views fail to demonstrate the '15 signs' that PE say are there in 2017 and this is vital not just because time has passed but because the car park has changed owners since then.

The signage evidence utterly fails to show where the signs are or what they say in 2017. The aerial view is unproven by photos and could merely be an imaginary game of join the dots.

That contract dated 1.4.16 is not only showing PE have supposedly been contracted by another parking firm 'Elite Parking' (who are not shown to be or believed to be the landowners) but it is so heavily redacted that it is impossible to make out the terms, the exemptions, times of operation, tariffs, whether PE or 'Elite Parking' are the party who have authority from the (separate) landowner to enforce contracts in the courts if necessary. In fact nothing at all in that blacked out document shows the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement (nor even how 'Elite Parking' can be a party and how they interact with ParkingEye, since neither are the landowner).

This fails to comply with 7.3 of the BPA CoP, as required to be evidenced in the appeal already made.