Parking Eye - Should I Ignore?

wilsonf1

Holy Crap! The time was mid August, a time of heat and sunlight and if memory serves me well, I sent off my POPLA appeal.

Well today is November and I got 2 (identical) mega packs from Parking Eye with a copy of their evidence they have sent to POPLA to fight me off.

The pack is huge. 40 pages worth of images, case examples etc etc.

I guess I just wait to hear from POPLA now? This evidence pack removes any confidence I had of beating them. Anyone got a recent view on how the appeals have gone?

bod1467

That's their intention - send lots of meaningless and irrelevant info to confuse and worry the other party.

If you read it you'll probably find several items that are patently wrong or irrelevant - as I understand there's nothing to stop you replying to POPLA to highlight these.

wilsonf1

bod1467 wrote: »

That's their intention - send lots of meaningless and irrelevant info to confuse and worry the other party.

If you read it you'll probably find several items that are patently wrong or irrelevant - as I understand there's nothing to stop you replying to POPLA to highlight these.

Based on that fact that has taken nearly 3 months - how long do you think it will take POPLA to read their evidence and then make a decision?

Strange they sent out 2 identical packs, dates a few days apart?!

Umkomaas

wilsonf1 wrote: »

Based on that fact that has taken nearly 3 months - how long do you think it will take POPLA to read their evidence and then make a decision?

Strange they sent out 2 identical packs, dates a few days apart?!

As you've included GPEOL (genuine pre estimate of loss) argument in your appeal - about 30 seconds. It's won every time against PE.

The 40-page dossier is a standard template. POPLA will either know it off by heart, or will be just totally fed up with it. It's unlikely to have any sway whatsoever once the GPEOL silver bullet has been fired.

Relax and await your result. I'm sure it's going to be OK.

wilsonf1

OK so this is annoying - we lost!

POPLA replied and stated:

Is is the Appellant's case that:

a) there is no contract with the site that permits levying the charges
b) there is unclear signage for drivers

Is says how Parking Eye proved those points and therefore the appeal has been refused.

But they have only picked up on my first and second points.

Point 3 was:

3) Inappropriate parking charge
The demand for a payment of £85 as noted within the Parking Charge is a punitive amount that has no relationship to the loss that would have been suffered by the Landowner. The BPA code of practice states:

19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay
is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge
must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that
you suffer.

19.6 If your parking charge is based upon a contractually
agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or
unreasonable.

I require Parking Eye to provide a detailed breakdown of how the amount of the 'charge' was arrived at. The PCN states that the registered keeper outstayed by XX minutes at X:XXpm. Based on the fact that most of the retail outlets close at 8pm and the car park would be at the very least over 90% empty I cannot possibly see how Parking Eye are at an actual loss from this. This must be proved. I am also aware from court rulings and previous POPLA adjudications that the cost of running the business may not be included in these pre-estimate losses and these are the only costs listed on the appeal rejection the registered keeper received in the post from Parking Eye.

My 4th point was [FONT=&quot]4) No breach/trespass

Why haven't they mentioned it? It's almost like the appeal letter was trimmed or something! Can I call them to ask?
[/FONT]

Umkomaas

Did you send your appeal via the POPLA online portal? That does 'chop off' lengthy appeals; this was a definite problem earlier in the year.

wilsonf1

Umkomaas wrote: »

Did you send your appeal via the POPLA online portal? That does 'chop off' lengthy appeals; this was a definite problem earlier in the year.

I remember reading about that. We specifically posted it for that reason!

Guys_Dad

You need to appeal to the lead adjudicator as the adjudicator missed your GPEOL point.

However, this reinforces my view and the advice I originally gave about waffle and layout.

People need to focus on the main points. Although you did have GPEOL in your appeal it wasn't a point heading and it ran directly on to a completely different point in the same paragraph and I reckon that the adjudicator skimmed through the appeal quickly and just missed the point.

Not your fault entirely but clearly they didn't spot it. You need to make that point to the lead adjudicator as the adjudicator here specified their considered points and GPEOL was not one of them.

For regulars, this is a lesson we need to take on board. Layout and content, cut out irrelevant verbiage and with GPEOL it needs to stand out and have definite wording re operational costs and putting the PPC to strict proof.

We have now lost our 100% claim, so Wilson1,that's another reason why you must appeal to lead adjudicator.

wilsonf1

Guys_Dad wrote: »

You need to appeal to the lead adjudicator as the adjudicator missed your GPEOL point.

However, this reinforces my view and the advice I originally gave about waffle and layout.

People need to focus on the main points. Although you did have GPEOL in your appeal it wasn't a point heading and it ran directly on to a completely different point in the same paragraph and I reckon that the adjudicator skimmed through the appeal quickly and just missed the point.

Not your fault entirely but clearly they didn't spot it. You need to make that point to the lead adjudicator as the adjudicator here specified their considered points and GPEOL was not one of them.

For regulars, this is a lesson we need to take on board. Layout and content, cut out irrelevant verbiage and with GPEOL it needs to stand out and have definite wording re operational costs and putting the PPC to strict proof.

We have now lost our 100% claim, so Wilson1,that's another reason why you must appeal to lead adjudicator.

Thank you Guys Dad. What is the process? Email, phone, write?

Guys_Dad

wilsonf1 wrote: »

Thank you Guys Dad. What is the process? Email, phone, write?

I would write enclosing the appeal and adjudication.

The letter should be short saying that you believe that the adjudicator did not address your Genuine Pre estimate of loss point you made in paragraph 4 and believe they may have missed it.

Then say that this point has been accepted a number of times at POPLA and it would be inconsistent if it was refused on your appeal if indeed the adjudicator did consider it but it does seem from the adjudication that the adjudicator only considered the two points in the adjudication.

Be sure to put the reference number clearly under the Dear Sir on the letter.

If anyone has the email address of the lead adjudicator, then you could email it but then include your appeal and the adjudication as separate attachments.