parking eye and popla, help please...

Stroma

No just do a basic appeal with a copy of the receipt, don't send originals just photo or scan it and that will do.

Coupon-mad

RedcarYellowcar wrote: »

bargepole wrote: »

Suggested wording for your POPLA appeal for the Jan. ticket:


THANK you so much for this, this really helps and I aim to finalise this letter this week to send and appeal to POPLA for the Jan PCN

If you don't mind-could I just check, on my initial appeal to PE for the May PCN, is there specific wording advised, other than-I am appealing this charge, due to being a paying customer at the store, find my receipt attatched?
Again all help greatly received.

Just a few thoughts about the POPLA one (as I expect the other one will be cancelled):

You could add a paragraph saying that Parking Eye cannot rely on a term which is not stated anywhere in their Signs and Notices. The 'minimum spend' is clearly a secret between themselves and the retailer and you only found out about it now. This 'minimum spend' is mentioned NOWHERE for a driver and so is null and void as it's an unfair term in law. Seeing as PE do cancel fake PCNs when a person has been shopping, there is no contractually agreed reason to disallow your proof of shopping.

Also, Parking Eye are on record in January I think(!), as stating that their charges in all their car parks are based on 'BREACH of contract'. State this as a fact (someone may be able to show you their letter which confirmed it). Therefore, PE have to show how the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss which you contend they will not be able to do when you were indeed shopping at the retail establishment who is their client (the only party who could possibly have suffered 'loss').

In addition to that, I always suggest with PE or similar PPCs who rely on 'ANPR' (LOL!! they are ordinary cameras with a zoom!!) that there should be a paragraph telling POPLA to check that the operator has proved compliance with the ANPR section of the BPA Code of Practice. With PE being required to provide tangible proof in the form of maintenance records and a log of camera/clock checks at the specific day of the incident. Read the BPA CoP to see what I mean.

And whilst you are looking at the BPA CoP, check for other issues such as the inordinate amount of time to send a rejection and POPLA code (well beyond the 35 days), and the lack of any publicised grace period, and inadequate signage, and no creditor named on the fake PCN which is a requirement of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. And anything else you can bung in from the BPA CoP, for them to trip up on.

And just to add, I do have slight misgivings about this paragraph:

'' 2. The Operator is a member of the British Parking Association, and the BPA Code of Practice states, in section 7.1, that the Operator must have written authority from the landowner to recover parking charges, including pursuing through court action. The Appellant puts the Operator to strict proof that they have the necessary authorisation at the location.''

...in that we know PE have started to include in their evidence packs, a signed 'authority' from landowner/occupiers (but not the actual contract or site agreement itself). So I suggest the paragraph shouldn't be asking for 'authorisation' but instead should require PE to produce the actual contemporaneous site agreement/contract that was in place at the time as you believe it's not compliant with the BPA Code.

bargepole

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You could add a paragraph saying that Parking Eye cannot rely on a term which is not stated anywhere in their Signs and Notices. The 'minimum spend' is clearly a secret between themselves and the retailer and you only found out about it now. This 'minimum spend' is mentioned NOWHERE for a driver and so is null and void as it's an unfair term in law. Seeing as PE do cancel fake PCNs when a person has been shopping, there is no contractually agreed reason to disallow your proof of shopping.

1. On the material date, the Appellant was a bona fide customer of the <INSERT NAME> Supermarket, and spent more than 1.5 hours browsing and purchasing items from the retailer. The Operator has already been provided with copies of receipts to establish this, and the Appellant asserts that the imposition of such a short time limit is arbitrary and unrealistic. Further, the Operator states in their letter of rejection, that the Appellant did not meet the "minimum spend" requirements; however no mention of this is made on any of the Operator's signage, and therefore this condition cannot form any part of any contract between the Operator and the appellant.

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Also, Parking Eye are on record in January I think(!), as stating that their charges in all their car parks are based on 'BREACH of contract'. State this as a fact (someone may be able to show you their letter which confirmed it). Therefore, PE have to show how the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss which you contend they will not be able to do when you were indeed shopping at the retail establishment who is their client (the only party who could possibly have suffered 'loss').

Covered in paragraph 3.

Coupon-mad wrote: »

And just to add, I do have slight misgivings about this paragraph:

'' 2. The Operator is a member of the British Parking Association, and the BPA Code of Practice states, in section 7.1, that the Operator must have written authority from the landowner to recover parking charges, including pursuing through court action. The Appellant puts the Operator to strict proof that they have the necessary authorisation at the location.''

...in that we know PE have started to include in their evidence packs, a signed 'authority' from landowner/occupiers (but not the actual contract or site agreement itself). So I suggest the paragraph shouldn't be asking for 'authorisation' but instead should require PE to produce the actual contemporaneous site agreement/contract that was in place at the time as you believe it's not compliant with the BPA Code.

2. The Operator is a member of the British Parking Association, and the BPA Code of Practice states, in section 7.1, that the Operator must have written authority from the landowner to recover parking charges, including pursuing through court action. The Appellant puts the Operator to strict proof in the form of a contract between the Operator and the Landowner, that they have the necessary authorisation at the location.''

Coupon-mad

Good points, I missed them as I have half an eye on the Championship Final!

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Good points, I missed them as I have half an eye on the Championship Final!

Snap!

Glad Palace have gone up!!!!

Andy_hammers

Hi could someone please tell me if I should ignore my popla appeals form I got from parking eye ,I recieved a ticket on December 2012 appealed to them with no luck it was a welcome break with 2 hours parking overstayed by about 40 mins it was dark and I pulled into the services as I had registered disable person in the car who was not feeling to good I have sent pictures of blue badge and also disabled tax as well would just love some advice if I should not send appeal to popla

Coupon-mad

ABSOLUTELY GUTTED - b)ll)cks to Palace. Always hate them. :mad:

kirkbyinfurnesslad wrote: »

Snap!

Glad Palace have gone up!!!!

Only glad to see the back of the cheating penalty-diving barstewards...and glad to laugh when they fall from grace next season as they really are rubbish.

Coupon-mad

Andy_hammers wrote: »

Hi could someone please tell me if I should ignore my popla appeals form I got from parking eye ,I recieved a ticket on December 2012 appealed to them with no luck it was a welcome break with 2 hours parking overstayed by about 40 mins it was dark and I pulled into the services as I had registered disable person in the car who was not feeling to good I have sent pictures of blue badge and also disabled tax as well would just love some advice if I should not send appeal to popla

You need your own thread please. But for Goodness sake WHY would you even think of ignoring the POPLA stage which we know how to win?!

Tilt

Andy_hammers wrote: »

Hi could someone please tell me if I should ignore my popla appeals form I got from parking eye ,I recieved a ticket on December 2012 appealed to them with no luck it was a welcome break with 2 hours parking overstayed by about 40 mins it was dark and I pulled into the services as I had registered disable person in the car who was not feeling to good I have sent pictures of blue badge and also disabled tax as well would just love some advice if I should not send appeal to popla

You need to start your own thread. Answering other poster's questions on someone else's thread causes confusion as the circumstances are bound to be different.

Andy_hammers

Hi could someone please tell me if I should ignore my popla appeals form I got from parking eye ,I recieved a ticket on December 2012 appealed to them with no luck it was a welcome break with 2 hours parking overstayed by about 40 mins it was dark and I pulled into the services as I had registered disable person in the car who was not feeling to good I have sent pictures of blue badge and also disabled tax as well would just love some advice if I should not send appeal to popla