Evidence pack received by Email...What next?

Dear Sir/Ma
Ref. POPLA appeal xxxxxxxx
In response to the evidence pack Parking Eye received xxxxxxxxx
Parking Eye have submitted an ‘evidence’ pack in support of their speculative and disputed invoice. I do not intend to address each and every point they have raised in detail as their submission is clearly a quickly hashed template, much of which is repetitive or indeed irrelevant to the matter at hand.

In making their assessment I ask the POPLA assessor to consider the following in further support of my original appeal submitted on xxxxxxxxx

1. The Operator has provided no evidence of any authority to offer and/or enter into a contract with a driver for parking, or pursue unpaid charges, or recover unpaid charges through litigation. The BPA CoP requires its members to have such authority in place and for the Claimant to identify itself as the Creditor, ( under schedule 4 of POFA 2012) they would require such authority. I therefore require that any and all contracts with the landowner, any written authority and/or other such other authorisation from the landowner is disclosed for the relevant period. If it is not, the appeal should be upheld. Additionally if any such authority grants a “ right to pursue unpaid parking charges in accordance with the BPA code of practice “ or words to that effect , without expressly authorising any rights to take court action then this would be insufficient and the appeal should be upheld.

2. Parking Eye have provided photographic evidence that does reflect the actual conditions that exist. Parking Eye have provided day time pictures dated xxxxxxxxx . The parking invoice was issued on the xxxxxxxxxx. The Photographic evidence I submitted with my first correspondence to POPLA titled “Evidence 1 “clearly show that on entry to the car park, the entry parking signs where covered with overgrown foliage. Another photographic evidence provided by myself clearly demonstrates that some of the Lighting poles at the car park were not operational at the time the parking invoice was issued making it impossible to read signs at night time and furthermore it simply would not be possible to read any signs whilst in a moving car, and certainly not have read them sufficiently to have be deemed to fully understand the T&C's to which it is alleged I agreed as the registered keeper of the vehicle.

3. Parking Eye claims that they have asserted the charges are a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and this is given as the justification that the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Parking Eye has failed to provide any actual evidence as to how the figures they quote are a genuine pre-estimate of loss. There is no attempt by PE to provide a clear and detailed breakdown of their estimate and it has just quoted small parts of the Beavis ruling which is not actual evidence. Parking Eye did not disclose that The Court of Appeal granted Mr Beavis permission to appeal its judgment on the recoverability of penalty charges imposed by a PPC.

It is also believed that the Supreme Court’s decision in Parking Eye vs Beavis will have an impact on the outcome of this POPLA appeal. As stated in my previous correspondence, if PE does not cancel their speculative and disputed invoice and/or if there is no other ground upon which the appeal can be determined, I ask that my case be adjourned pending the Beavis case

Umkomaas wrote: »

Oops, almost an own goal there fella! I guess the assessor didn't get this far down your rebuttal!

Anyway, job done, and well done. Please see my comments against your post in the POPLA Decisions sticky.

My Bad ... it was corrected in the email sent to popla