Recieved pcn ( from tower rd Newquay).

Coupon-mad

NIX_76 wrote: »

Hi,the reason they gave for rejecting the appeal was : a valid parking ticket was not purchased or the appropriate parking time on the date of the parking event. I have been issued a popla code .
I have been searching through forum trying to find info for popla appeal a lot of it seems quite mind boggling with acts and legal jargon i am not familiar with. Obviously the main areas to include would be the unclear signage, !!!! Can anyone tell me what other areas are appropriate !

We have already told you in this link what to include in a POPLA appeal:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/62180281#Comment_62180281

Can't get clearer than a lot of examples, then a blog 'how to win a POPLA appeal' and two threads about 'points to include in POPLA appeals'...all on that link...

What about reading other Tower Road car park threads? Just search for the keyword 'Newquay' or 'Tower' (or both words) on this forum board. Several threads about that car park on here already so search & find them.

NIX_76

This is a rough draft I have put together could anyone pls give me some assistance with anything else that needs adding or removing.

This is my popla appeal regarding a recent alleged incidentwhere parking eye claim a valid ticket was not purchased/ or the appropriatetime was not adhered to.

Dear Popla

I am writing this to appeal a parking charge notice sent tome by Parking Eye Ltd. The alleged vehicle entered the said car park on xxxxxxxand exited on xxxxxx. The driver of the vehicle purchased what they believed tobe an adequate amount of time needed by them. Next to the main parking chargetariff sign there is a second sign stating if you over stay your allotted timenot to worry as you can then purchase the extra time used before exiting thecar park. This is confusing as there is no tariff set out and you are left totry and work out the correct amount to pay. The driver purchased the extraticket on return and entered the vehicle registration . The amount purchasedmore than covered the stay and more than covered the actual whole day parking rate. The saidvehicle was correctly parked and the appropriate tickets were purchased anddisplayed. The tickets are still present as evidence.

Firstly i would like to point out that in there correspondencewith the registered keeper, Parking eye haven’t produced any evidence todemonstrate that they have the legal capacity to charge the driver of a vehicleusing their car park. Accordingly i ask you to check whether or not Parking Eyehave provided an up to date signed copy of the contract or agreement with theland owner , one that states that they are entitled to pursue these mattersthrough issuing PCN’s and through the courts. I require that this is an actualcopy and not simply a document which claims that such a contract or agreementexists.

The signs in the car park don’t comply with the regulationsset out in the BPA approved operator scheme code of practice version 3 of June2013. Their signs should be clear and not misleading as their overstay paymentsign is, which leads to confusion on payment amounts to the benefit of ParkingEye. The signage should inform drivers what there camera technology can be usedfor . I ask Parking Eye to demonstrate how their signage meets BPA regulations.Parking Eye are obliged to make sure this equipment is in working order irequire them to present evidence to show that the cameras are maintained andchecked regularly in relation to dates/ times and to ensure accuracy of ANPRimages, as the entirety of the charge is founded on 2 images purporting to showthe vehicle entering and exiting at specific times.

I’d like to highlight that Parking Eye charges are notproportionate to the alleged offence. As no offence has taken place and ticketswere purchased i put it to you that this notice is incorrect and no offenceshave been commited.

It can only remain a farce that this charge is an attempt atextorting an unlawful charge to impersonate a parking ticket. The operatorcould state the letter an invoice or a request for monies but chooses the wordingPCN in an attempt to be deemed an official parking fine similar to what thepolice and council wardens issue.

The PCN issued is not legitimate as multiple tickets werepurchased to cover the parking times so Parking Eye are falsifying evidence.

Guys_Dad

You have missed out the not a genuine pre-estimate of loss point. They are not allowed to include salaries, uniforms, office costs, van costs ,signs etc. Check out wording here. https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4739105

Also, I would number and paragraph the points so that the Adjudicator doesn't miss any. Don't run 2 in any 1 section as in your ANPR and signage section.

The signs in the car park don’t comply with the regulationsset out in the BPA approved operator scheme code of practice version 3 of June2013. Their signs should be clear and not misleading as their overstay paymentsign is, which leads to confusion on payment amounts to the benefit of ParkingEye.

Just how do they fail to comply? Just because you say so? Of course not, so spell it out.

Your appeal is along the right lines though.

Coupon-mad

Getting there but stuff about 'no loss' and 'it's a penalty so it's unenforceable' and a few other possible bits (unfair contract terms) not covered I think?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4739845

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4739105

And those are among the 'sure winners' to always include so don't miss them out!

NIX_76

I have roughly drafted another attempt at an appeal. Would appreciate any advice or assistance again ty


This is my popla appeal regarding a recent alleged incidentwhere parking eye claim a valid ticket was not purchased/ or the appropriatetime was not adhered to.

Dear Popla

I am writing this to appeal a parking charge notice sent tome by Parking Eye Ltd. The alleged vehicle entered the said car park on xxxxxxxand exited on xxxxxx. The driver of the vehicle purchased what they believed tobe an adequate amount of time needed by them. Next to the main parking chargetariff sign there is a second sign stating if you over stay your allotted timenot to worry as you can then purchase the extra time used before exiting thecar park. This is confusing as there is no tariff set out and you are left totry and work out the correct amount to pay. The driver purchased the extraticket on return and entered the vehicle registration. The amount purchasedmore than covered the stay and more than covered the actual whole day parkingrate. The said vehicle was correctly parked and the appropriate tickets werepurchased and displayed. The tickets are still present as evidence.

1 .Firstly i would like to point out that in therecorrespondence with the registered keeper, Parking eye haven’t produced anyevidence to demonstrate that they have the legal capacity to charge the driverof a vehicle using their car park. Accordingly i ask you to check whether ornot Parking Eye have provided an up to date signed copy of the contract oragreement with the land owner , one that states that they are entitled topursue these matters through issuing PCN’s and through the courts. I requirethat this is an actual copy and not simply a document which claims that such acontract or agreement exists.

2 .The signs in the car park don’t comply with theregulations set out in the BPA approved operator scheme code of practiceversion 3 of June 2013. Due to their position, overall size and barely legibleprint size, the signs are very hard to read and are not positioned clearly atthe entrance and exit. I contend that the signs and parking terms are too smallfor any driver to see, read and understand. Their signs should be clear and not misleadingas their overstay payment sign is, thus not conforming to the BPA code of practice,which leads to confusion. There is no clear display of appropriate tariff forover stay payments, to the benefit of Parking Eye.

3. Parking eye should clearly inform drivers that cameratechnology is present upon entering the car park and clearly advertise itspurpose. I ask Parking Eye to demonstrate how their signage meets BPAregulations. Parking Eye are obliged to make sure this equipment is in workingorder i require them to present evidence to show that the cameras are maintainedand checked regularly in accordance to (section 21 of the code , in relation todates/ times and to ensure accuracy of ANPR images, as the entirety of thecharge is founded on 2 images purporting to show the vehicle entering andexiting at specific times.

4. I am informing Parking eye that there is no contract betweenthemselves and a driver upon enteringa car park (as the charge levied is unfair and therefore not binding). Even if there was a contract then it isunfair as defined in the unfair terms in consumer contracts regulations 1999.So the requirements of forming a contract such as a meeting of minds , agreement , certainty of terms , etc ,were not satisfied . As in schedule 2 of those regulations gives a list ofterms which may be regarded as unfair. These include schedule 2 (1) (e) “Termshave the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil theirobligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation “. Alsoregulation 5 (1) states : a contractual term which has not been individuallynegotiated shall be regarded as unfair if , contrary to the requirement of goodfaith it causes significant imbalance in parties rights and obligations arisingunder the contract to the detriment of the consumer “. Regulation 5 (2) states“ a term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiatedwhere it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not beenable to influence the substance of theterm” .

5. Parking eye have submitted “that their charge is basedupon the cost of enforcing parking restrictions at the site (for example, byerecting signage and employing administrative staff) and the charge was agreedby the landowner and specified on site signage. As you claim you are at a lossdue to a failure to purchase a valid ticket / the appropriate parking time onthe date of the parking event. However a supposed breach in said parking contractdoes not justify as a loss as this bears no relevance to your operating costs. Yourbusiness running costs would be exactly the same, had the accused beenelsewhere on the day in question.

I’d like to highlight that Parking Eye charges are notproportionate to the alleged offence. As no offence has taken place and ticketswere purchased i put it to you that this notice is incorrect and no offenceshave been committed.

It can only remain a farce that this charge is an attempt atextorting an unlawful charge to impersonate a parking ticket. The operatorcould state the letter an invoice or a request for monies but chooses thewording PCN in an attempt to be deemed an official parking fine similar to whatthe police and council wardens issue.

The PCN issued is not legitimate as multiple tickets werepurchased to cover the parking times so Parking Eye are falsifying evidence.

Coupon-mad

Looks good to me and I do prefer to see everyone (like you have) referring to template examples of POPLA appeals and then re-writing it in your own style. Nice POPLA appeal - and if the sign does indeed say you can buy more time then this is a ridiculous ticket and POPLA will find in your favour.

EHBA

NIX_76 wrote: »

I have roughly drafted another attempt at an appeal. Would appreciate any advice or assistance again ty


This is my popla appeal regarding a recent alleged incidentwhere parking eye claim a valid ticket was not purchased/ or the appropriatetime was not adhered to.

Dear Popla


3. Parking eye should clearly inform drivers that cameratechnology is present upon entering the car park and clearly advertise itspurpose. I ask Parking Eye to demonstrate how their signage meets BPAregulations. Parking Eye are obliged to make sure this equipment is in workingorder i require them to present evidence to show that the cameras are maintainedand checked regularly in accordance to (section 21 of the code , in relation todates/ times and to ensure accuracy of ANPR images, as the entirety of thecharge is founded on 2 images purporting to show the vehicle entering andexiting at specific times.

They possibly have an 'ANPR in operation' sign at the entrance to Tower Road, they do at Fistral. Whilst it should be possible to read the words ANPR in operation, whether a driver could upon entering is another matter.

The ANPR sign at Fistral gives no indication that the clock is ticking the instant you enter until the instant you leave in relation to parking charges.

Nor does it state ref 'topping up' that the actual topping up does not cover any time between entering and paying.

No signage states that you should keep your ticket in the event of a parking charge dispute or legal action.

Stroma

No good having a sign saying specifically that 'ANPR is in operation' a layman is not likely to know what ANPR means, these abbreviations are unfair and confusing, how would somebody without the access to the net will find out what it means ?

NIX_76

Does anyone have any ideas how I could get a picture of the parking tarrif and the over stay sign from tower rd ? This sign is definitely different to fistral beach as it has no examples of what to pay , just a lot of writing . I remember as well that the evening charges are different at fistral and tower rd . I presume that if I can get a picture some how, I should send it in with my appeal along side the tickets purchased ?

Coupon-mad

NIX_76 wrote: »

Does anyone have any ideas how I could get a picture of the parking tarrif and the over stay sign from tower rd ? This sign is definitely different to fistral beach as it has no examples of what to pay , just a lot of writing . I remember as well that the evening charges are different at fistral and tower rd . I presume that if I can get a picture some how, I should send it in with my appeal along side the tickets purchased ?

I would simply put it to POPLA, exactly what the driver recalls the sign said and require that the PPC produce that exact sign in their evidence. Then you will get it in with their 'evidence' (pile of junk) that the PPC has to copy to you in the post. If you then want to add any objection you can post your further thoughts to POPLA about it.