Parking Eye Fine - Fistral Beach

bod1467

I suspect The Prankster may be in touch with you about that.

Redx

when you say you have not heard back from POPLA , are we safe to assume you had an acknowledgement that they received your actual appeal ?

normally they will send out an auto-response or similar to say they have it, even if they have not told you yet when the assessment date will be

Given that you sent it in a month ago I would have thought you would have received a date by now, possibly sometime in February judging by other posts, so it may be worth sending in a quick email with your ref code and asking if a date has been set yet - just a thought

ps:- also, in post #102 section 1 , can you please edit the word Penalty to Parking as its a good template letter for anyone else appealing about this car park and seems the only typo, thanks (as in post #103) , also the bit about in their own name

pogofish

Somebody at my work seems to have managed to get some tickets from Fistral on one of our vehicles.

Office are now furiously emailing round trying to identify the driver - who has obviously decided to keep stumm. Given that they are using the "f-word" liberally and taking PE seriously, Whilst being quite happy to get into bed with another PPC themselves, I'll leave them to keep looking!

siross

Redx wrote: »

when you say you have not heard back from POPLA , are we safe to assume you had an acknowledgement that they received your actual appeal ?

normally they will send out an auto-response or similar to say they have it, even if they have not told you yet when the assessment date will be

Given that you sent it in a month ago I would have thought you would have received a date by now, possibly sometime in February judging by other posts, so it may be worth sending in a quick email with your ref code and asking if a date has been set yet - just a thought

ps:- also, in post #102 section 1 , can you please edit the word Penalty to Parking as its a good template letter for anyone else appealing about this car park and seems the only typo, thanks (as in post #103) , also the bit about in their own name

Yes I've received the confirmation that they have received my appeal, just nothing with regards to dates of assessment or outcomes.

I'll edit my posts now.

Simon

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

I wonder if ukcps will now ditch their' if u want to go to popla you have to appeal again' rubbish. This also applies to anpr Ltd saying you have to write again to n Martin after he tells you off and says its a waste of time and pcm saying they must have driver details.....

Coupon-mad

kirkbyinfurnesslad wrote: »

I wonder if ukcps will now ditch their' if u want to go to popla you have to appeal again' rubbish. This also applies to anpr Ltd saying you have to write again to n Martin after he tells you off and says its a waste of time and pcm saying they must have driver details.....

And I was thinking about Wing Parking, who insist on a second stage pointless 'Housing Association' appeal after their own 'appeal stage'.

And what about NCP who have REALLY been pushing it recently - in fact I recall a thread where a person had complained to the BPA about NCP saying the appeal was from a 'third party' so they refused to deal with the keeper. And the BPA let them get away with it (may be worth bumping that thread, not sure if it was here or on pepipoo though).

4consumerrights

And of course despite all this instructions to raise the standards when these breaches in their code of practice occurs - sanction points are rarely if at all issued- and certainly not where Parking Eye are concerned.

Parking eye claim to have an unblemished "licence" from the AOS BPA membership and confirm the 30% increased turnover.

http://www.parkingeye.co.uk/about-us/statistics/

• 600 million vehicle recognitions annually

• 900+ parking facilities in the UK

• 35,000 items of correspondence processed weekly

• 30% annual growth in turnover, staff and car parks

• Clean BPA AOS membership licence

Richmond_Dean

Not sure how to upload an attachment so I cut the text from my successful appeal. Note I think that in the first line it should read Operator not Appellant. Hopefully self explanatory but you might want to act quickly before Parking Eye plugs the gap.

Reference 6063113048
The Operator rejected the Appellant’s representations, as set out in the correspondence they sent because they state that a breach of the car park conditions had occurred by parking without purchasing the appropriate parking time. They state that they believe that their charges are fair and reasonable and they have provided a list of costs they incur in issuing and enforcing the parking charge which include among other costs but it is not restricted to costs to BPA membership, DVLA, loss of revenue, national insurance and etc.
Although, the Operator responds to the points raised by the Appellant, I find that the Operator in this case refers to general principles and to other cases but does not appear to specify the actual heads of loss. I note that some heads submitted in this present case may fall within a genuine pre-estimate of loss, nevertheless, I find that a substantial proportion of them do not. Equally for the reasons, set out above, a list of all their costs in the case cannot amount to commercial justification. In short, the damages sought on this particular occasion do not substantially amount to a genuine pre-estimate of loss or fall within commercial justification.
Accordingly, the appeal must be allowed.

4consumerrights

Richmond_Dean wrote: »

Not sure how to upload an attachment so I cut the text from my successful appeal. Note I think that in the first line it should read Operator not Appellant. Hopefully self explanatory but you might want to act quickly before Parking Eye plugs the gap.

Reference 6063113048
The Operator rejected the Appellant’s representations, as set out in the correspondence they sent because they state that a breach of the car park conditions had occurred by parking without purchasing the appropriate parking time. They state that they believe that their charges are fair and reasonable and they have provided a list of costs they incur in issuing and enforcing the parking charge which include among other costs but it is not restricted to costs to BPA membership, DVLA, loss of revenue, national insurance and etc.
Although, the Operator responds to the points raised by the Appellant, I find that the Operator in this case refers to general principles and to other cases but does not appear to specify the actual heads of loss. I note that some heads submitted in this present case may fall within a genuine pre-estimate of loss, nevertheless, I find that a substantial proportion of them do not. Equally for the reasons, set out above, a list of all their costs in the case cannot amount to commercial justification. In short, the damages sought on this particular occasion do not substantially amount to a genuine pre-estimate of loss or fall within commercial justification.
Accordingly, the appeal must be allowed.

Richmond Dean - Congratulations on your POPLA win - but this is Siross's thread which you've hijacked.

Could you please post this in the POPLA decisions thread - the sticky one at the top and add the name of the Asssessor.

Thanks:)

siross

Update.

I WON! Massive thank you to everyone on the thread and wider forum who helped with my appeal it is genuinely very much appreciated!

Please see below for an extract from the letter, it looks as though Parking Eye didn't even bother to be honest:

The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXXX

arising out of a presence on private land, of a vehicle with registration mark XXXXXX

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.

Parking on Private Land Appeals is administered by the Transport and Environment Committee of London Councils

Calls to Parking on Private Land Appeals may be recorded

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

It is the Appellant’s case that the parking charge notice was issued incorrectly.

The Operator has not produced a copy of the parking charge notice, nor any evidence to show a breach of the conditions of parking occurred, nor any evidence that shows what the conditions of parking, in fact, were.

Accordingly I have no option but to allow the appeal.