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

android26

deadlydiego wrote: »

I recommend that the appeal should be accepted and the removal of the parking charge notice issued by ParkingEye be deemed null and void,

Personally I wouldn't write this. It's their decision to make not your recommendation that they should take.

I'm not an expert around here, but have a look at post 6 on this thread.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4751357
I know that sometimes word docs don't always come out on here with full layouts and paragraph breaks, but try to fit your details around it, as succinctly as that poster, and with an easy to read style that worked for him.

Once an adjudicator sees the words "I contend that £xxx is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss..." standing out, I think you will make the whole process easier for them. On reading it quickly, you have barely mentioned losses and I can't see anything about demanding a comprehensive breakdown of the PPC pre-estimate of loss at all, but detail to the enth degree on signage.

Good luck

deadlydiego

android26 wrote: »

I'm not an expert around here, but have a look at post 6 on this thread.
I know that sometimes word docs don't always come out on here with full layouts and paragraph breaks, but try to fit your details around it, as succinctly as that poster, and with an easy to read style that worked for him.

Once an adjudicator sees the words "I contend that £xxx is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss..." standing out, I think you will make the whole process easier for them.

Good luck

Think its my work settings which are causing it into one big paragraph, I assure you i have got them organised better than the post! lol

android26

I've now included the link in my other post!

Guys_Dad

Who exactly is this aimed at? To be honest, I can't cope with the formatting or lack of it and may have missed the answer.

Why don't you go back and edit your post adding spaces and paragraphs in edit mode, then everyone can see what it is you are saying and you may get more responses.

deadlydiego

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Who exactly is this aimed at? To be honest, I can't cope with the formatting or lack of it and may have missed the answer.

Why don't you go back and edit your post adding spaces and paragraphs in edit mode, then everyone can see what it is you are saying and you may get more responses.

Guy's DadIt is something to do with the javascript on the computer at work regarding this forum which refuses to put paragraphs and spaces into the post, even though they are there.If you want to read an alternative version of this, there is one on pepipoo, but this wont let me link it

Coupon-mad

I tried amending that appeal but failed as it is far too wordy and admits failings by the driver and misses out some recent useful stuff.

Try looking at this case & POPLA appeal example:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4810260

HTH

deadlydiego

Thanks for the help Coupon Mad, I will try and cut down my appeal slightly and will try and remove any instances which insinuates there have been failures from the driver

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

That appeal would give the Popla adjudicator a headache.
Please try again

hoohoo

In the landowner has not authorised parkingeye bit, add:

ParkingEye’s use of witness statements has now been widely discredited and I wish to robustly challenge the use of any witness statement without the actual documentary evidence such as the full unredacted contract, together with the ‘User Manual’. The user manual includes amongst other information, reasons why the landowner will cancel charges, and I therefore believe this is an integral part of the contract information.

In POPLA case 1771073004 the motorist submitted a witness statement which was rejected by the assessor, proving that witness statements are not automatically accepted by POPLA. The motorist challenged this decision, and the POPLA lead adjudicator replied:
“In this appeal, both parties produced evidence. The role of any tribunal of fact is to weigh often conflicting evidence. The Operator produced evidence to show that the vehicle was at a particular location. The Appellant produced a witness statement to show that it was not. The Operator produced images of the vehicle. The Appellant’s witness refers to having seen photographs of his vehicle in a location other than the site in question and but failed to produce the photographs or state where the vehicle was.”

Having provided sufficient evidence that ParkingEye’s witness statements are discredited by the courts, that their practices and procedures are not robust, I respectfully submit that I have produced enough evidence to show that ParkingEye’s witness statements cannot be relied on to be true.
 
List of evidence regarding dubious witness statements

The following court cases illustrate irregularities in ParkingEye’s evidence regarding their authority to charge money for parking and to pursue charges to court. They have happened recently and so no transcripts are available. However, as ParkingEye were present they will be able to confirm they are correct
1. 3QT52338 ParkingEye v Walkden 29/10/2013 Barrow in Furness. The hearing was originally held on 16/07/2013. ParkingEye produced a witness statement. District Judge Dodd found the witness statement extremely unsatisfactory, ordered the case to be adjourned at ParkingEye’s expense, and to reconvene at a later date. ParkingEye were ordered to produce a redacted contract from the landowner to the defendant, and a full unredacted copy to the Judge. The case reconvened on 29/10/2013. The contract sent to the defendant was dated Feb 2013 whilst the parking event was October 2012. The witness statement from Paul Shrewbrook of the Range and the attached letter of authority was not dated. The judge ruled that ParkingEye did not have authority to manage the car park because they contravened section 7.1 of the BPA code of practice which clearly states that the parking company must have written authority before any management of a car park can commence.
2. 3QT61897 ParkingEye v Barrett. 16/10/2013, Cardiff. The contract was dated 7/11/2012, which was after the Parking event on 24/10/2012. The contract was in a different name (Peachkey) to the landowner name (McDonalds Bridgend) given on the witness statement, although both contract and witness statement were signed by the same person. ParkingEye stated that the witness statement from McDonalds referred to a different document, which they did not have in court. The witness statement also stated that the parking charge was valid. However, McDonalds had not been informed the defendant had broken down and were therefore not informed of the full facts by ParkingEye. District Judge C W Dawson adjourned the case and ordered ParkingEye to bring the originals of all documents next time. McDonalds, when informed of the irregularities, ordered ParkingEye to drop the parking charge and the case.
3. 3QT29139 ParkingEye v Shelley. 23/07/2013 The contact produced in court was signed in February 2013. However, the parking event was around October 2012. Once again the witness was Paul Shrewbrook of the Range.
4. In 3QT62646 ParkingEye v Sharma 23/10/2013 Brentford County Court, District Judge Jenkins explained he was throwing the claim out because it was brought in the name of ParkingEye and not the landowner. He said the landowner could bring the case in their own name or jointly with ParkingEye if they wished. The witness statement therefore contained incorrect information. It was not apparent from the witness statement that the witness had the required expertise to interpret the contract correctly.

5. In 3QT60598 ParkingEye v Gardam, 14/11/2013 High Wycombe County Court. District Judge Jones found the judgement by District Judge Jenkins persuasive and ruled that the claimant did not have the right to bring the case in their own name. The witness statement therefore contained incorrect information. It was not apparent from the witness statement that the witness had the required expertise to interpret the contract correctly.

In all known cases up to Nov 2013 involving ParkingEye when the landowner agent is Colliers International the signature is identical on every document and therefore appears to be photocopied. The date is added at a later time, and several different handwriting examples have been identified. Cases have been found from late 2012 to 1-10-2013, indicating this practice has been continuing for almost a year. In at least one case the witness statement has the same date as the parking event, creating the reasonable suspicion this was backdated – a witness statement is not produced for each of the 200,000 parking charges issued..
In several cases involving ParkingEye when the landowner is Aldi, the document is signed by somebody who is not the witness.
In several cases involving Paul Shrewbrook of the Range as the witness, the date has been added in multiple different handwritings, leading to the reasonable suspicion it was added after the event.

In cases involving Jon Briant as the witness, he sometimes asserts that Fistral beach is owned by Fistral Beach Ltd and at other times that it is owned by Britanic Industries.