Booked by Parking Eye

unamused_me

Recieved a huge 35 page letter from PE yesterday, included all corespondence and 27 photos of where the sings are around he car park, even had a birds eye view photo of the car park showing where every sign is..... this stressed me out again. Is the normal proceedure. Last week i emailed POPLa with 2 photos of the signs in the car park but had no reply form them, i went on the popla site but it wouldnt accept my code. Shall i just wait now.....and do you really think i will win the case?
Cheers

Umkomaas

unamused_me wrote: »

Recieved a huge 35 page letter from PE yesterday, included all corespondence and 27 photos of where the sings are around he car park, even had a birds eye view photo of the car park showing where every sign is..... this stressed me out again. Is the normal proceedure. Last week i emailed POPLa with 2 photos of the signs in the car park but had no reply form them, i went on the popla site but it wouldnt accept my code. Shall i just wait now.....and do you really think i will win the case?
Cheers

Normal PE POPLA 'bundle'. Nothing to worry about, it's not done them much good in the other cases they've lost against forum-assisted appeals.

Coupon-mad

unamused_me wrote: »

Recieved a huge 35 page letter from PE yesterday, included all corespondence and 27 photos of where the sings are around he car park, even had a birds eye view photo of the car park showing where every sign is..... this stressed me out again. Is the normal proceedure. Last week i emailed POPLa with 2 photos of the signs in the car park but had no reply form them, i went on the popla site but it wouldnt accept my code. Shall i just wait now.....and do you really think i will win the case?
Cheers

Instead of getting stressed out why not read other threads with people in your shoes? You only had to read a few to know that, yes, this is the normal bundle. If you see anything in it you'd like to take issue with, then send a follow-up letter to POPLA (e.g. if the map is wrong, doesn't match the current set-up in the car park, signs not the same now, etc.). If you want to add stuff for POPLA send it by snail-mail with the 10 digit code written on every page and saying 'this is additional evidence, please add to my file, I have also sent a copy to Parking Eye'. And send a copy to PE as well (in the interests of fairness and so that POPLA will allow your extra evidence or issues).

Really you'd be so much calmer and better informed if you just read a lot of other threads as well as your own. Every thread is like yours, where the person is appealing and at POPLA stage. Skim read the forum and read those that look similar, you'll see what happens. We do get bored repeating the same stuff over and over again and always appreciate a newbie reading other threads to learn about the whole scam and how to defeat it, instead of randomly posting a shriek for 'help' every time a standard letter arrives that, to be fair, you should have been expecting if you'd read a few threads...

unamused_me

Just checking in to say that POPLA said the'yd reply to me end of September but still heared nothing. Thanks all.

Coupon-mad

Well we have found that they forget a few cases and need a gentle nudge, then will send the outcome. So send them an email.

unamused_me

ok, i was hoping i'd got away with it!!

Coupon-mad

unamused_me wrote: »

ok, i was hoping i'd got away with it!!

You will have won as long as they could read your full appeal attachment.

unamused_me

thank you and thank you for all your dedicated hard work. you know who you all are xx

Everyone Keep fighting the supposed parking fines and listen to the advice on here!!

Here is my POPLA Decision...........

ParkingEye Ltd (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxxx
arising out of the presence at Pontypridd Retail Park, on xxxx 2013, of
a vehicle with registration mark xxx xxx. The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.
The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has
determined that the appeal be allowed.
The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.
The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.
xxxxxxx xx October 2013
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
It is the Operator’s case that a parking charge notice was correctly issued,
giving the reason as: ‘By remaining at the car park for longer than the stay
authorised or without authorisation, in accordance with the terms and
conditions set out in the signage, the Parking Charge is now payable’. The
Operator submits that a parking charge is now due in accordance with the
clearly displayed terms of parking.
It is the Appellant’s case that:
a) There was no contract formed between the Appellant and the
Operator as there was insufficient signage on site; and, there was no
consideration provided by the Appellant as the car park was free.
b) The parking charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of the Operator’s
loss.
c) The parking charge is unreasonable and unfair.
d) The Operator does not have sufficient authority to issue parking charge
notices in relation to the land as it is not the landowner and does not
have permission from the landowner to enter contracts in its own right.
e) The Operator has breached the Equality Act 2010 as it has harassed
the driver of the vehicle.
The Appellant has submitted that the parking charge does not represent a
genuine pre-estimate of the Operator’s loss, and so is not enforceable.
The signage produced states that a parking charge notice would be issued
for a “failure to comply” with the terms of parking. This wording seems to
indicate that the charge represents damages for a breach of the parking
contract. Accordingly, the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The Operator has submitted that its charges have been held to be
enforceable in previous cases; however, the Operator has not produced any
evidence to justify this parking charge. The losses suffered by breaches of a
parking contract may vary depending on the nature of the car park, and the
nature of the breach. That a parking charge at a certain level is held not to
be a penalty in one car park, does not mean that the same sum is a preestimate
of the loss caused in every car park.
xxxxxxxxx x xxx October 2013
The Operator has produced a statement which it submits justifies the charge
as a pre-estimate of loss; however, I am not minded to accept this
justification. The Operator must show that the charge sought is a genuine
estimate of the potential loss caused by the parking breach - in this case the
Appellant’s overstay. The Operator has produced a list of costs; however,
these appear to be general operational costs, and not losses consequential
to the Appellant’s breach.
The onus is on the Operator to prove its case on the balance of probabilities.
Accordingly, once an Appellant submits that the parking charge is not a
genuine pre-estimate of loss, the onus is on the Operator to produce some
explanation or evidence in order to tip the balance in its favour.
In this case the Operator has not provided any evidence as to why this
charge in a genuine pre-estimate of loss. I am not minded to accept that it is
sufficient to simply list the names of previous cases without applying them to
this case.
Consequently I must find that the Operator has failed to produce sufficient
evidence to demonstrate that the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate
of loss.

Accordingly, I allow the appeal.

Coupon-mad

Well done, knew that would be the outcome as long as the whole appeal was seen by the assessor (which clearly it was). PE lose again on 'no genuine pre-estimate of loss' at POPLA.

unamused_me

I cant thank you enough.... all that worrying. Im now so conscious where i park its ridiculous!!!