Parking eye fistral beach

trisontana

hoohoo wrote: »

50% ish is correct, and has been recently confirmed by POPLA's annual report.

However, the 50% who lose are the ones who submit weak appeals to POPLA. So far, I have not seen a strong appeal fail.

Which just shows that PPCs get it wrong at least 50% of the time. What other "industry" has such a high failure rate?

nigelbb

trisontana wrote: »

Which just shows that PPCs get it wrong at least 50% of the time. What other "industry" has such a high failure rate?

Some PPCs get it wrong >90% of the time.

Coupon-mad

hoohoo wrote: »

50% ish is correct, and has been recently confirmed by POPLA's annual report.

However, the 50% who lose are the ones who submit weak appeals to POPLA. So far, I have not seen a strong appeal fail.

Just what I was going to say - and it's pointless to look at the 54%/46% figure from the first few months when appeals were experimental. Also the figures are always going to be skewed by bad appeals by people who haven't a clue (sadly).

The much more important % is the cases won/lost with a strong appeal used from here or pepipoo, since we learned the sort of thing POPLA will allow (from about March onwards). There are lots in the POPLA backlog 'in-trays' awaiting a decision but of those we have seen decided, 100% have been won by the motorist.

We really are in the position at the moment to say to newbies 'here's a strong appeal example or two and appeals written around these points haven't lost yet'. Why ignore, when you can win at the scammers' expense and help to boost the overall win % over PPC World (which will increase as people get wise).

lcbandituk

EHBA wrote: »

I haven't been to Fistral since last summer but sadly, I have looked very closely at the PE signage there on many occasions. The signs are there in abundance. What your son and his mates have told you is what they, naively, want to think and what they want you to think. Unlike most PE sites, users are given the opportunity to pay up/top up before they leave, if they have overstayed their initial payment period

I do not agree that people pay PE large amounts of money. I certainly don't want youngsters to have to shell out money to companies like Parking Eye whilst I would like them to pay the car park owner, Britannic Industries, for the amount of time they stayed there.

One thing that youngsters need to be told nowadays is this 'if you park, look for parking signs. If there are parking signs, expletive deleted, read them'.

You won't get anywhere on lack of signage at Fistral. I can't confirm the current wording though.

Not quite sure what you're trying to get at by saying they want to naively think and they want me to think? If any sign had been visible and readable from their cars on entrance, saying it was a 24hour car park the appropriate fee wouldve been paid! I have been on many forums reading up about the so called signage at fistral, it is not big enough or placed well enough to see on the entrance and exit to the car park, also the lettering isn't of standard size!

Can I just say its not just 'youngsters' who are being caught out by this scam! If you don't leave your cars are you actually parked? Would seem from your comments you have some sort of vested interest in said car park? To be quite honest I would not think that at the time of night it was you would have to pay for going in a car park!

I am in the fortunate position I have someone in Newquay who can check out the signs for me, so we shall see.

EHBA

lcbandituk wrote: »

Not quite sure what you're trying to get at by saying they want to naively think and they want me to think? If any sign had been visible and readable from their cars on entrance, saying it was a 24hour car park the appropriate fee wouldve been paid! I have been on many forums reading up about the so called signage at fistral, it is not big enough or placed well enough to see on the entrance and exit to the car park, also the lettering isn't of standard size!

Can I just say its not just 'youngsters' who are being caught out by this scam! If you don't leave your cars are you actually parked? Would seem from your comments you have some sort of vested interest in said car park? To be quite honest I would not think that at the time of night it was you would have to pay for going in a car park!

I am in the fortunate position I have someone in Newquay who can check out the signs for me, so we shall see.

I'll concede, I haven't driven into Fistral car park since it has been under PE control/signage without already knowing that it was under PE parking conditions and tariffs.

Your son and his pal might not have known about Parking Eye and it may have been dusk/dark. As I also said, they may have parked by the beach and not seen any signs.

I don't think this or any other parking forum suggests that people should avoid paying charges in P&D car parks and I am certainly not involved with Britannic Industries

If, after your friend has visited the car park and taken pictures and you believe there are genuine grounds for an appeal on poor signage or other grounds as per Guys Dad, I'm sure people will assist.

As it is a P&D car park, some might suggest a payment of the actual parking fees payable on the day be made to Britannic Industries and may be able to assist with wording that gets PE off your back .

lcbandituk

Well I have to say they're quick with their reminders two weeks not even up to pay reduced amount (due 14th june) and a reminder has arrived today!!!

Coupon-mad

lcbandituk wrote: »

Well I have to say they're quick with their reminders two weeks not even up to pay reduced amount (due 14th june) and a reminder has arrived today!!!

But they have submitted challenges now, yes?

lcbandituk

Coupon-mad wrote: »

But they have submitted challenges now, yes?

just says at the top parking notice reminder, ive still to send my appeal email to them yet as we have 28 days to do that in apparently

Coupon-mad

lcbandituk wrote: »

just says at the top parking notice reminder, ive still to send my appeal email to them yet as we have 28 days to do that in apparently

You do but don't dither. The first challenge should only be simple - like in the Highview link I gave you before - you can copy and paste that 'short but sweet' appeal example in 5 minutes flat and be done!

If you are tempted to pad it out a bit DO NOT imply who was driving, keep it in the third person, such as:

'The driver did not see any signs at the entrance and in addition, when a car is parked facing the beach I understand that no signs are visible at all. As the registered keeper, if you reject this challenge I will state to POPLA - among other points of appeal - that I believe any signs you have there are unlit, unclear and wholly inadequate for a driver to see when remaining in the car (as many people do, who visit a tourist beach to watch the waves). This unclear signage is a breach of the BPA Code of Practice and you should make the terms and conditions much clearer at that site.'

lcbandituk

i am doing the short but sweet version as we speak lol oh and adding your little bit that you have put above too for a bit more clout (hopefully)