ParkingEyes evidence to POPLA - Irregularity.

ossie48

My appeal is due to be heard next week and PE have sent POPLA their evidence pack and forwarded me a copy.

My defence was made with the assistance of posters on here and one of the points I raised was Contract with the landowner NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE BPA CODE OF PRACTICE AND NO LEGAL STATUS TO OFFER PARKING OR ENFORCE TICKETS

In their evidence pack is a Witness statement where they state 'The Landowner is Aldi who is the owner of the site'. they then drip on about having authority to issue charges etc.

I have completed a land registry search for £3 and found that they dont own the site, they lease it from the Council for a peppercorn rent on a 125 year lease. Does this kill their case dead and can I submit this additional evidence to POPLA ?

Guys_Dad

You make that point in your appeal. You then have 2 different contract appeal points.

The first is the council is the landowner (show proof). You demand that the PPC provides clear evidence that Aldi's lease from the council gives them (a) permission to levy charges on motorists through any PPC and (b) that planning permission for a timed free period of xx minutes has been obtained.

The second is that the PPC has a contract with ALDI that gives them permission to levy charges. Put them to strict proof and say that, as Parking Eye have been forced to withdraw "witness statements" recently for documentary irregularities, a copy of the contract is a must.

In addition to that, please include as a separate point the new self inflicted wound from Parking Eye. Post #52 here https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/63687448#Comment_63687448 has a link to a letter from PE that admits that its Pre-estimate of loss is £53, not £100.

So you hit them with that around the GPEOL point too.

peter_the_piper

I feel almost sorry for PE(Well not really), assuming people use these points they don't stand a chance.

ossie48

Guys_Dad wrote: »

You make that point in your appeal. You then have 2 different contract appeal points.

The first is the council is the landowner (show proof). You demand that the PPC provides clear evidence that Aldi's lease from the council gives them (a) permission to levy charges on motorists through any PPC and (b) that planning permission for a timed free period of xx minutes has been obtained.

The second is that the PPC has a contract with ALDI that gives them permission to levy charges. Put them to strict proof and say that, as Parking Eye have been forced to withdraw "witness statements" recently for documentary irregularities, a copy of the contract is a must.

In addition to that, please include as a separate point the new self inflicted wound from Parking Eye. Post #52 here https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/63687448#Comment_63687448 has a link to a letter from PE that admits that its Pre-estimate of loss is £53, not £100.

So you hit them with that around the GPEOL point too.

The statement is actually from Aldi (sorry for the confusion) stating they are the landowners and give PE permission to manage the car park . This is plainly wrong. I contacted the council previously and they stated there was no need to give Aldi any permission for charging so nothing in writing (this was months ago, when I suspected the land was council owned).

Can a leaseholder assume the rights of a landowner under the BPA code of practice ?

Guys_Dad

That's only a detail and you can write your appeal to take that into account. You challenge that point with your evidence that they are not.

They didn't say they were the Landholder by any chance as that is different and probably true.

Is their claim on a Witness statement, by any chance??? If so, who signed it (name please?) There is quite a bit of jiggery-pokery with PE witness statements at the moment. Take a look at here http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/ to see what I mean.

ossie48

Defo Landowner.

Its a statement from Aldi, not PE signed by someone called Barlow saying PE have the authority to give out tickets etc.

I feel quite miffed that Aldi are not only fully backing PE but are making out that they are the landowners when they actually lease it off the council.

ossie48

Actually PE are referring to Aldi as the Landholder, Aldi state they are the landowner - when the council in fact are.

As for GPEOL I had that well covered in the appeal so fingers crossed.

Guys_Dad

ossie48 wrote: »

Defo Landowner.

Its a statement from Aldi, not PE signed by someone called Barlow saying PE have the authority to give out tickets etc.

I feel quite miffed that Aldi are not only fully backing PE but are making out that they are the landowners when they actually lease it off the council.

It doesn't look like this does it ?
WITNESS STATEMENT



On behalf of [landowner] I confirm that:

1. The site is [name of site].
2. The Landowner is [landowner], who is the owner of the site.
3. The Operator is [operator]
4. The Operator has the authority of the Landowner to undertake parking management, control and enforcement at the site.
5. This authority is contained in an agreement dated [date] running from [date] to [date].
6. The Operator is authorised by the Landowner to issue parking charge notices where vehicles are parked on the site in a manner not permitted under the terms and conditions of parking.
7. The terms and conditions are as clearly set out on signage at the site and, where applicable, with any permit or dispensation for use at the site.
8. The issuing of parking charge notices is subject to the agreed criteria and exemptions, as also as clearly set out on signage at the site and, where applicable, with any permit or dispensation for use at the site.
9. The Operator is authorised to issue a parking charge notice for breach of any of the terms and conditions referred to above.
10. The Operator is authorised by the Landowner to pursue the outstanding parking charges in accordance with the British Parking Association Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice.

I confirm that I am authorised to make this statement on behalf of the Landowner and that the above information is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.



……………………………………………………………..
Signature


Name………………………………………………………………

Position……………………………………………………………

For and on behalf of [landowner]

Date………………………………………………………………..

ossie48

Guys_Dad wrote: »

It doesn't look like this does it ?
WITNESS STATEMENT



On behalf of [landowner] I confirm that:

1. The site is [name of site].
2. The Landowner is [landowner], who is the owner of the site.
3. The Operator is [operator]
4. The Operator has the authority of the Landowner to undertake parking management, control and enforcement at the site.
5. This authority is contained in an agreement dated [date] running from [date] to [date].
6. The Operator is authorised by the Landowner to issue parking charge notices where vehicles are parked on the site in a manner not permitted under the terms and conditions of parking.
7. The terms and conditions are as clearly set out on signage at the site and, where applicable, with any permit or dispensation for use at the site.
8. The issuing of parking charge notices is subject to the agreed criteria and exemptions, as also as clearly set out on signage at the site and, where applicable, with any permit or dispensation for use at the site.
9. The Operator is authorised to issue a parking charge notice for breach of any of the terms and conditions referred to above.
10. The Operator is authorised by the Landowner to pursue the outstanding parking charges in accordance with the British Parking Association Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice.

I confirm that I am authorised to make this statement on behalf of the Landowner and that the above information is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.



……………………………………………………………..
Signature


Name………………………………………………………………

Position……………………………………………………………

For and on behalf of [landowner]

Date………………………………………………………………..

Yes its exactly the same :-)

ossie48

The sodding statement is dated 2012 !!! This happened in July 2013.

Guys_Dad

ossie48 wrote: »

Yes its exactly the same :-)

Ah the infamous "Witness statement".

Right, the Parking Prankster needs you to send him a copy http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/

Please look at his current opening post and get in touch.

See here also https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4812058 to see why this may be important.

Your appeal to POPLA should make reference to the case in the second link. Parking Eye are not being up front on the use of witness statements and you must make specific demand that they show both contracts I suggested and not witness statements, which are clearly incorrect as you can prove that ALDI are not the landowners.

If you have a mind to, contact the CEO of ALDI and ask if Mr/Ms Barlow is an authorised signatory for ALDI and if they have had sight of the contract between ALDI and PE at this particular site and can they confirm that ALDI obtained planning consent for a car park with a time limit.