ParkingEye "Invoice" - The Range Barrow-in-Furness

deadlydiego

I have now received my POPLA code from Parking Eye, as well as a letter stating the reasons why my appeal has been rejected. The three reasons they have stated why my appeal has been rejected areA, That there is a strong commercial justification for the chargeB, That there is ample case law to suggest the value of such a Parking Charge is not punitive andC, This notwithstanding ParkingEye can still provide evidence that this charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.They have then sent me a load of case records attached with it.Would be appreciated if anyone could guide me in carrying out the task of writing the formal appeal to POPLA.RegardsMarc

bod1467

Eh? Did you delete your previous post (that Guys Dad replied to) then post the same info again?

Umkomaas

deadlydiego wrote: »

I have now received my POPLA code from Parking Eye, as well as a letter stating the reasons why my appeal has been rejected. The three reasons they have stated why my appeal has been rejected areA, That there is a strong commercial justification for the chargeB, That there is ample case law to suggest the value of such a Parking Charge is not punitive andC, This notwithstanding ParkingEye can still provide evidence that this charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.They have then sent me a load of case records attached with it.Would be appreciated if anyone could guide me in carrying out the task of writing the formal appeal to POPLA.RegardsMarc

Stock, templated reply - everybody gets one! Don't worry about any of these blatherings.

Get on with your POPLA draft appeal, to include signage, lack of proprietary interest in the land to issue charges in their own right, lack of contract with the landowner and GPEOL.

Here's a recent excellent POPLA appeal for you to look at and see where you can use it in your particular circumstances.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=63805538&postcount=12

And Guys Dad's link to his excellent advisory on POPLA appeals in his earlier post is a 'must read' too.

Guys_Dad

Feels like the 2 Ronnies' sketch where Ronnie C answers the next question !!!!!!!!

Of course PE send out all that stuff to intimidate you. but you only need to ask one question. If they were correct, how come they have all these losses on the POPLA DECISIONS sticky thread?

Wise up.

esmerobbo

"Commercial justification in our charges". Tis a pity POPLA don't agree yet they still churn it out!

spacey2012

Another company that has got in to bed with these crooks and scammers.
Do they not google the name first.
Others establishments have paid out millions in buy out contracts to get rid of these parasites.
A business would have to be stupid to let them free on their customers.
These are people spending their money at your shop.
Everyone that gets hit and hit them they will is another customer you have lost.

deadlydiego

bod1467 wrote: »

Eh? Did you delete your previous post (that Guys Dad replied to) then post the same info again?

Was trying to sort the layout mate, for some reason everything is being placed in one paragraph, even tho im separating them, it wasnt anything sinister.

Coupon-mad

Parking on Private Land Appeals
How to win at POPLA (2013 information). POPLA decisions (do not start reading there at page 1 - read back from the most recent at the end, and learn!).

The above was on the sticky thread all the time ' newbies, read this now!'.

deadlydiego

This is my attempt at my POPLA Appeal, if anybody can advise me for any changes or additions to this, it would be much appreciated.Regards

deadlydiego

Dear Sir or MadamI am writing this letter regarding a Parking Charge Notice I received through the post on the 30th October 2013. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle XXXX XXX and is regarding the reference number XXXXX/XXXXX I have lodged an appeal with ParkingEye and this has been rejected and they have sent me the POPLA verification code XXXXXXXXXX.I am therefore lodging a further appeal with you due to the injustice of the Parking Charge Notice which has been lodged against me from ParkingEye and the appeal is due to a number of reasons.The response from ParkingEye of their rejection of my appeal started with “there is a strong commercial justification for the charge”. I believe this to be a general statement and this appeal has not taken into consideration the actual facts of the case. This would then show that there is no commercial justification for the parking charge notice. The driver has parked their car into a car park which is free of charge, thereby the company not losing any finances through cost of parking. The retail outlet which the car park resides on was also closed at the time of the incident. The purposes of the cameras are to provide assistance to the retail outlet in trafficking customers into their business and prevent non-customers from taking advantage of no-parking fees by taking their custom elsewhere. The driver has parked outside of opening hours, which therefore has created no commercial justification as this has not prevented customers from spending any finances within the retail outlet. There also was no issue by preventing any customers from parking as the car park was empty at the beginning and end of the endorsed parking charge notice.ParkingEye have also not justified their stance over ownership or permission of rights from the land owner. ParkingEye have stated that they have permission to perform their tasks on the car park, but this has not been proven at any point in regards to the production of any legally binding document. Without any document being produced that shows that they have permission from the landowner, and not the tenant of the land, they have no rights of jurisdiction to control the parking regulations of the private land, and therefore can not endorse any penalty charge on the registered keeper of the vehicle.There are also numerous issues that negate the legality of the parking which can be seen in the photos which have been produced from this appeal. Prior to entering the car park from the main road, the signage has restricted viewing due to plants, bushes and shrubbery surrounding the entrance to the car park (See Fig 1 and 2). The issue with the restricted viewing causes issues with the driver as there is no early warning for the drive to notice any regulations that are allegedly enforced upon on the land. Upon entering the car park, the driver turned into the car park with a right turn. The first sign that would be visible would be the sign to the left (Fig 3). The most recognisable part of the sign shows a blue letter “P”, which shows that it is a car park. The main headline of the sign states that there is a maximum stay of two hours which gives the impression that the driver has a maximum stay time of two hours stated. Underneath the blue letter “P”, another statement is pronounced stating that it is only for customer use whilst on site. The alleged offence of this case started at 08:37 which would be in the two hour period of the opening time if the driver had waited for the retail outlet to open. The driver has therefore not broken any regulations in entering the car park previous to the retail outlet opening, as the two hour period would still apply regardless of the driver leaving prior to the opening of the outlet.As the driver has made a right into the entrance, and saw the previous sign shown on the left, there is also another sign on the right in parallel with the original sign (Fig 4 and 5). The sign placed in that position would be a struggle to be visible from the driver as they would be underneath the sign by the time they have read the first sign they see, and it would also be difficult to read from a distance due to the small font that is applied to the sign. The height of the sign is also questionable. This sign has been constructed on a pole, which in turn has been placed onto a flower bed / bush-like area. The driver would estimate the sign to be roughly 7 ½ to 8 foot high which would cause difficulty in being legible to the driver.Another issue which has been noticed with the signage issues is that it appears that there has been an amendment to the sign shown in Fig 5. The small print seems to have been amended post-erection of the sign and this has further decreased the size of the font used on the sign to an even greater length of difficulty in reading as driving into the car park. The font size shown on the sign must contravene signage laws stating that all fonts must be legible to the driver whilst entering the car park.The driver parked the vehicle into the first bay of the car park on the date mentioned in the parking charge notice. If the driver failed to see any of the details whilst entering the car park, a further sign stating the agreements is not shown for a further 3 – 4 bays, which would make the sign impossible to read from the car or from the driver exiting the car (Fig 6). The signage is therefore not clear to the customer and further requirements on signage should be issued in order for the driver to adhere to any alleged regulations imposed by ParkingEye.ParkingEye use a camera to capture vehicles entering and exiting the car park. The driver will enter the car park, be captured by the camera and the registered keeper was then informed via letter through the post. The location of the camera is not adequate in this car park and cannot be used safely, as the retail outlet’s car park is based on a one way system. This would mean that anybody entering the car park mistakenly would already have breached ParkingEye’s regulations for entering private land. This does not help the driver with the lack of opening time awareness either. (This will be mentioned later in this appeal). The driver would then not be able to stop themselves from entering the car park as it would be clearly unsafe to reverse back onto a main road, from a one way entrance, where pedestrians also have crossings. This gives ParkingEye an unfair situation by which they are being financially rewarded for genuine mistakes by the driver, which have not incurred any such costs to ParkingEye.This appeal previously mentioned the lack of awareness in opening times of the retail outlet which currently occupies the permissions of the car park. The lack of notice in opening times give a distinct disadvantage to the customer as genuine mistakes can be made by the driver, and then ultimately punished by ParkingEye.The final issue is with the distinct lack of lighting available around the entrance signage. Without the use of proper lighting facilities, the signages have an unacceptable level of visibility in the hours between sunrise and sunset. Without adequate lighting, the driver would not be able to legibly read the signs and therefore a contract can not be set out by ParkingEye if the signage can not be read and fully understood by the driver.On the submission of the evidence shown in this appeal, I recommend that the appeal should be accepted and the removal of the parking charge notice issued by ParkingEye be deemed null and void, and the charge is therefore cancelled.Yours Faithfully