Parking Eye @Morrison Parking Charge Notice

yy2uk

Thanks so much everyone.
Guy Dad, the letters you helped me to write makes a huge difference. Thank you very much.

I will update the post once I got the reply.





Thank you so much for your prompt reply, Redx and Guy Dad. will do the work soon.

Hello Everyone,

I am new to this website, I got the PCN about 2 weeks after I visited a Morrison in North London for overstayed about 1 hour(2 hours free). My gf and I went there to get some softdrink, she felt sick at the time so I decided to stay in cafe for a while till she felt better. I did not kept any receipt, the bank statement only shows that the money has been collected 2 days after. I follow the instruction of how to appeal to parking eye from this website. However, I got a reply from them telling me they refused it and they also provide a few pages of FAQ's telling me why my argument is wrong. I will scan them and upload them here later.

here's the link of scan files in pdf.
well it seem I can not post the link, it might the same as everyone else's letter. so it wont matter



Now, I have the POPLA reference number do I only need to fill the form and send it back and just wait? It said that use my own word to write a letter to them is better, but as a foreign language to me, is it better to copy and paste the sample letter from other forum members?

Many Thanks

Redx

read the sticky threads on here , read a few other threads with template and example appeal letters, copy and paste into your own document and if unsure post a redacted version for checking on here

once you have a good popla appeal, to accompany your popla paperwork, email or post all of it off to popla

do not just send the official paperwork , make sure you have a good popla appeal to be sent with it mentioning the gpeol , landowner contracts , ppc authority etc

if necessary, provide enough details on here to allow others to help you, but no personal details or reference numbers etc

most respondents only need a few basic facts to help you and there are many examples of templates and appeals on here to assist you with yours

good luck

Guys_Dad

There are 2 threads you need to read.

1. https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822 for the process, terminology etc etc

2. https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816165 for a template POPLA appeal to build on

The thing to get in your head the circumstances don't matter. You are appealing against the Parking Company's charges, procedures and failures.

Read the links, some other threads and then come back with questions and your 1st draft POPLA appeal before you send it off.

yy2uk

Thank you very much for your reply.

I have to admit that I copy and paste all of these except the place and length of the time, do you think this would work?

If, only if the worst happen (pls, pls, don't, finger cross) , do I need to pay in full amount of the charge (they extend the discount rate for another 14days for 'good will right now').

Thanks again for your help.

Appeal RE Parking Eye
I, as the registered keeper received a parking charge penalty for allegedly overstaying in Morrisons for 75 minutes. My appeal was refused by Parking Eye because I had not provided sufficient evidence to show that the driver did not break the terms and conditions on the signage.

I am appealing this penalty on the following points.

1. The Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
2. No contract with the Landowner
3. Signage
4. ANPR Accuracy

1. The Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The Department for Transport guidelines state, in Section 16 Frequently Asked Questions, that:

"Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken. For example, to cover the unpaid charges and the administrative costs associated with issuing the ticket to recover the charges. Charges may not beset at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalise the driver."

Considering the alleged 75minute overstay I contest that £85 is not a reasonable or genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The parking company submitted that the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of the losses incurred in managing the parking location.
The entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. I require the parking company to submit a breakdown of how these costs are calculated. All of these costs must represent a loss resulting from the alleged breach.

For example, were no breach to have occurred then the cost of parking enforcement (for example, erecting signage, wages, uniforms, office costs) would still have been the same and, therefore, may not be included.

It would, therefore, follow that these charges were punitive, have an element of profit included and are not allowed to be imposed by parking companies.

Furthermore, I attach the letter I received from Parking Eye that admits that their estimate of cost in each case is actually £53, including operating costs, and this that the charge they are seeking to impose in my case has a considerable element of profit as well as operating costs incorporated. By their own admission, therefore, It can not, be a true pre-estimate of loss

2. No contract with the Landowner
Parking Eye does not own the car park and I dispute that they have the authority to enter into contracts regarding the land or to pursue charges allegedly arising.
Parking Eye has also not provided any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from the driver or keeper. They do not own nor have any proprietary or agency rights or assignment of title or share of the land in question. I do not believe that the Operator has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park they do not own, or indeed the lawful status to allege a breach of contract in their name.

Parking Eye must provide the POPLA Adjudicator with documentary evidence in the form of a copy of the actual site agreement/contract with the landowner/occupier. Specifically, to comply with the Code of Practice, the contract needs to specifically grant Parking Eye the right to pursue parking charges in the courts in their own name, as creditor. Please note that a 'Witness Statement' to the effect that a contract is in place between Parking Eye and the landowner will be insufficient to provide all the required information, and will therefore be unsatisfactory.

3. Signage


I believe the signs and any core parking terms that the parking company are relying upon were too high and too small for any driver to see, read or understand when driving into this car park. Parking Eye needs to show evidence and signage map/photos on this point - specifically showing the height of the signs and where they are at the entrance, whether a driver still in a car can see and read them when deciding to drive in. Any terms displayed on the ticket machines or on a ticket itself, do not alter the contract which must be shown in full at the entrance. I believe the signs failed to properly and clearly warn/inform the driver of the terms in this car park as they failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice appendix B. I require the operator to provide photographic evidence that proves otherwise.

As a POPLA assessor has said previously in an adjudication
“Once an Appellant submits that the terms of parking were not displayed clearly enough, the onus is then on the Operator to demonstrate that the signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently clear”.

The parking company needs to prove that the driver actually saw, read and accepted the terms, which means that I and the POPLA adjudicator would be led to believe that a conscious decision was made by the driver to park in exchange for paying the extortionate fixed amount the Operator is now demanding, rather than simply the nominal amount presumably due in a machine on site.

The idea that any driver would accept these terms knowingly is perverse and beyond credibility.
Also, as this was a Motorway Services Area. Which is specifically designed for drivers to rest. Operators of Motorway Services Areas (MSAs) and their agents must comply with the requirements of Government policy. These provisions are reflected in the Traffic Signs Agreements into which they enter with the Highways Agency.

The Highways Agency, on behalf of the Department for Transport (DfT), published a policy on the provision of roadside facilities on its network. That policy is 'DfT Circular 01/2008: Policy on Service Areas and other Roadside Facilities on Motorways and All-purpose Trunk Roads in England'.

''Signing within roadside facilities
100. All traffic signs and markings within roadside facilities should conform to the standards laid down in the TSRGD 2002 as amended or replaced from time to time.''

I require Parking Eye to show proof to the POPLA adjudicator that the DFT/Highways Agency has granted special authorisation for Parking Eye’s 'traffic signs' in this particular MSA, to be exempt from this policy requirement. It will not be enough for Parking Eye to claim that their particular signs placed in this MSA are in Parking Eye’s own opinion, not 'traffic signs' when clearly they can indeed be interpreted as such and - unlike other adverts and signs on site - are not intended to direct pedestrians.

I put Parking Eye to strict proof to provide evidence of date of erection of all signage and proof of compliance of that signage with the standards laid down in the TSRGD 2002 and with BPA Code of Practice and BSI Standards.

As Parking Eye are arguing the driver entered into a legal contract with them based ENTIRELY on signage. I put Parking Eye to strict proof to provide POPLA with an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of their evidence that each sign was illuminated for the purpose of 'after dark' reading and to provide mapping of the signage.





4. ANPR Accuracy
This Operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. I require the Operator to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that this Operator must produce evidence in response to these points and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the Operator in Parking Eye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence form the Operator was 'fundamentally flawed' as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.

So, in addition to showing their maintenance records, I require the Operator in this case to show evidence to rebut this point: I suggest that in the case of my vehicle being in this car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The operator appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live". Hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. Therefore I contend that this ANPR "evidence" from this Operator in this car park is just as unreliable as the Parking Eye system and I put this Operator to strict proof to the contrary.

Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged for a free car park, it can only remain a fact that this 'charge' is an attempt at extorting an unlawful charge to impersonate a parking ticket. This is similar to the decisions in several County Court cases such as Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008), also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011), Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011) and UKCPS v Murphy (April 2012).
The operator could state the letter as an invoice or request for monies, but chooses to use the wording “CHARGE NOTICE” in an attempt to be deemed an official parking fine similar to what the Police and Council Wardens issue.



I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

Kind Regards


Many Thanks

Guys_Dad wrote: »

There are 2 threads you need to read.

1.liinks for a template POPLA appeal to build on

The thing to get in your head the circumstances don't matter. You are appealing against the Parking Company's charges, procedures and failures.

Read the links, some other threads and then come back with questions and your 1st draft POPLA appeal before you send it off.

Coupon-mad

You can't use that version because that's written all about a Motorway services car park. Do not send that!

Yours was a Morrisons so the easiest thing is for you to complain to Morrisons first of all, this weekend! Like this, either by sending an email to the CEO or by speaking to the Store Manager:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4762460

But if the Morrisons Store Manager doesn't cancel the fake PCN for you, then send POPLA this letter (below) attached to the POPLA form and tick the appeal grounds boxes (except for the 'stolen car' box). Staple it securely together, making sure that the POPLA 10-number code is on every page, and post it to POPLA.




Dear POPLA Assessor,
Re: ParkingEye fake PCN, verification code xxxxxxxxxx

I am the registered keeper and I wish to appeal a recent parking charge from ParkingEye. Notwithstanding that we were genuine customers of the principal (Morrisons) and the passenger was taken ill (as that is mere mitigation and ParkingEye have already ignored it), I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:

1) No genuine pre-estimate of loss
This car park is free and there is no provision for the purchasing of a ticket or any other means for paying for parking. There was no damage nor obstruction caused so there can be no loss arising from the incident. ParkingEye notices allege 'breach of terms/failure to comply' and as such, the landowner/occupier (not their agent) can only pursue liquidated damages directly flowing from the parking event. Given that ParkingEye charge the same lump sum for a 15 minute overstay as they would for 150 minutes, and the same fixed charge applies to any alleged contravention (whether serious/damaging, or trifling as in my case), it is clear there has been no regard paid to establishing that this charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

This charge from ParkingEye as a third party business agent is an unenforceable penalty. In Parking Eye v Smith, Manchester County Court December 2011, the judge decided that the only amount the Operator could lawfully claim was the amount that the driver should have paid into the machine. Anything else was deemed a penalty. And in my case this was a free car park with no payment due whatsoever.

The Office of Fair Trading has stated to the BPA Ltd that a 'parking charge' is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists. And the BPA Code of Practice states that a charge for breach must wholly represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss flowing from the parking event.

ParkingEye and POPLA will be familiar with the well-known case on whether a sum is a genuine pre-estimate of loss or a penalty: Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company Limited v New Garage and Motor Company [1915] AC 79. Indeed I expect ParkingEye might cite it. However, therein is the classic statement, in the speech of Lord Dunedin, that a stipulation: “… will be held to be a penalty if the sum stipulated for is extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison with the greatest loss which could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach.'' There is a presumption... that it is penalty when "a single lump sum is made payable by way of compensation, on the occurrence of one or more or all of several events, some of which may occasion serious and others but trifling damage".

No doubt ParkingEye will send their usual well-known template bluster attempting to assert some ''commercial justification'' but I refute their arguments. In a recent decision about a ParkingEye car park at Town Quay Southampton, POPLA Assessor Marina Kapour did not accept ParkingEye's generic submission that the inclusion of costs which in reality amount to the general business costs incurred for the provision of their car park management services is commercially justified. ''The whole business model of an Operator in respect of a particular car park operation cannot of itself amount to commercial justification. I find that the charge is not justified commercially and so must be shown to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable against the appellant.''

My case is the same and POPLA must be seen to be consistent if similar arguments are raised by an appellant.

2) No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers
ParkingEye do not own the land mentioned in their Notice to Keeper and have not provided any evidence that they are lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper. Even if a contract is shown to POPLA, I assert that there are persuasive recent court decisions against ParkingEye which establish that a mere parking agent has no legal standing nor authority which could impact on visiting drivers.

In ParkingEye v Sharma, Case No. 3QT62646 in the Brentford County Court 23/10/2013 District Judge Jenkins checked the ParkingEye contract and quickly picked out the contradiction between clause 3.7, where the landowner appoints ParkingEye as their agent, and clause 22, where is states there is no agency relationship between ParkingEye and the landowner. The Judge dismissed the case on the grounds that the parking contract was a commercial matter between the Operator and their agent, and didn’t create any contractual relationship between ParkingEye and motorists who used the land. This decision was followed by ParkingEye v Gardam, Case No.3QT60598 in the High Wycombe County Court 14/11/2013 where costs of £90 were awarded to the Defendant. District Judge Jones concurred completely with the persuasive view in ParkingEye v Sharma that a parking operator has no standing to bring the claim in their own name. My case is the same.

3) Flawed landowner contract and irregularities with any witness statement
Under the BPA CoP Section 7, a landowner contract must specifically allow the Operator to pursue charges in their own name in the courts and grant them the right to form contracts with drivers. I require ParkingEye to produce a copy of the contract with the landowner as I believe it is not compliant with the CoP and that it is the same flawed business agreement model as in Sharma and Gardam.

If ParkingEye produce a 'witness statement' in lieu of the contract then I will immediately counter that with evidence that these have been debunked in other recent court cases due to well-publicised and serious date/signature/factual irregularities. I do not expect it has escaped the POPLA Assessors' attention that ParkingEye witness statements have been robustly and publicly discredited and are - arguably - not worth the paper they are photocopied on. I suggest ParkingEye don't bother trying that in my case. If they do, I contend that there is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory has ever seen the relevant contract terms, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner, or signed it on the date shown. I contend, if such a witness statement is submitted instead of the landowner contract itself, that this should be disregarded as unreliable and not proving full BPA compliance nor showing sufficient detail to disprove the findings in Sharma and Gardam.

Indeed I submit (and as I have raised the issue, ParkingEye must now disprove) that their Contract or User Agreement with Morrisons is likely to contain a secret 'genuine customer exemption' clause which in fact exempts Morrisons customers like us from these spurious charges. Not only have ParkingEye not allowed my initial appeal that the driver and passenger were genuine Morrisons customers, but at the outset, when they allege a contract was formed, (which is denied) ParkingEye failed to alert the driver to that secret clause. Which leads me to the next point:

4) Breach of UTCCR 1999 and CPUTR 2008
I contend that a secret term which leaves a customer at a severe disadvantage as they are unaware of it, is a 'wholly unreasonable' contract term and a 'misleading omission' which is in breach of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations (CPUTR) 2008. ParkingEye are taking unconscionable advantage of myself by demanding a 'charge' for alleged 'breach', holding me liable and yet not informing the driver at the point of any alleged contract, about the secret exemption clause that I believe exists in their contract with Morrisons. Nor did they refer to it when rejecting my appeal which told them that we were customers who were delayed by illness in the store. Parking Eye as agents, have no lawful excuse to pursue this wholly unfair and disproportionate charge when I believe their own contract with the retailer specifically allows paying customers to be exempt. Parking Eye are seeking to impose punitive sanctions that are not required at all by any 'legitimate interest of the principal'.

CPUTR 2008 Part 2, Prohibitions
Misleading omissions
6(1) A commercial practice is a misleading omission if, in its factual context, taking account of the matters in paragraph (2)—

(a)the commercial practice omits material information,
(b)the commercial practice hides material information,

and as a result it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.

Office of Fair Trading 'Guidance for the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999'
''It is unfair to impose disproportionate sanctions for breach of contract. A requirement to pay more in compensation for a breach than a reasonable pre-estimate of the loss caused to the supplier is one kind of excessive penalty. Such a requirement will, in any case, normally be void to the extent that it amounts to a penalty under English common law...''
Test of fairness
''A term is unfair if:
Contrary to the requirement of good faith it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations under the contract, to the detriment of consumers.
5.1 Unfair terms are not enforceable against the consumer.
9.2 ...terms of whose existence and content the consumer has no adequate notice at the time of entering the contract may not be binding under the general law, in any case, especially if they are onerous in character.''

If they refute this then Parking Eye must explain their position to POPLA, produce the unredacted section of the contract and/or User Manual and show how they consider they can override the express wishes of the principal when Parking Eye are mere agents. And explain how their secret 'exemption clause' meets the test of fairness if they do not share it with the party they hold liable. Such terms must be in the signage they are relying upon to have formed the alleged contract at the outset.

5)The signage was not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice so there was no valid contract formed between ParkingEye and the driver
I submit that this signage failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice section 18 and appendix B. The signs failed to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach. Further, because ParkingEye are a mere agent and place their signs so high, they have failed to establish the elements of a contract (consideration/offer and acceptance). Any alleged contract (denied in this case) could only be formed at the entrance to the premises, prior to parking. It is not formed after the vehicle has already been parked, as this is too late. In breach of Appendix B (Mandatory Entrance Signs) ParkingEye have no signage with full terms which could ever be readable at eye level, for a driver in moving traffic on arrival. The only signs are up on poles with the spy cameras and were not read nor even seen by the occupants of the car, who were there at the invitation of Morrisons, to shop and enjoy free parking as expressly offered to customers in the principal's advertising and website.

6) ANPR Accuracy and breach of the BPA Code of Practice 21.3
This Operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. I say that Parking Eye have failed to clearly inform drivers about the cameras and what the data will be used for and how it will be used and stored. I have also seen no evidence that they have complied with the other requirements in that section of the code.

In addition I question the entire reliability of the system. I require that ParkingEye present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that this Operator must produce evidence in response and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss recently in ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence from ParkingEye was fundamentally flawed because the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.

So, in addition to showing their maintenance records, I require ParkingEye to show evidence to rebut the following assertion. I suggest that in the case of my vehicle being in this car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The operator appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live". Hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. Therefore I contend that this ANPR "evidence" from the cameras in this car park is just as unreliable and unsynchronised as the evidence in the Fox-Jones case. As their whole charge rests upon two timed photos, I put ParkingEye to strict proof to the contrary.

I request that my appeal is upheld and for POPLA to inform ParkingEye to cancel the PCN.

Yours faithfully,

THE REGISTERED KEEPER

yy2uk

Thank you so much.
This is the letter I am going to send to Morrisons CEO. Do I need mention that I am the registered keep in the letter as well?
Do I need to send my bank statements to Morrison's CEO as well?

Thank you

Dear Mr. Dalton Phillips,

PakingEye Reference No. xxxxxxx/xxxxx

I visited Morrison’s on 21 October 2013 at Camden Town, at the time my girlfriend was unwell and I decided to stay in the Cafe till she felt better. Two weeks later, I received a Parking Charge Notice from Parking Eye telling me that I have been charged £85 for the overstay. The staff in Camden Town told me that they could do nothing on this. This why come straight to you. As a regular customer of Morrison’s Supermarket, I Do Not think that I deserve the way how I been treated. I would not do my shopping at Morrison’s again until the charge has been cancelled. I would also advise all my family and friend not shopping at Morrion’s as they might been fined £85 for parking in the supermarket.

Yours Sincerely

THE REGISTERED KEEPER

Guys_Dad

yy2uk wrote: »

Thank you so much.
This is the letter I am going to send to Morrisons CEO. Do I need mention that I am the registered keep in the letter as well?
Do I need to send my bank statements to Morrison's CEO as well?

Thank you

Dear Mr. Dalton Phillips,

PakingEye Reference No. xxxxxxx/xxxxx

I visited Morrison’s on 21 October 2013 at Camden Town, at the time my girlfriend was unwell and I decided to stay in the Cafe till she felt better. Two weeks later, I received a Parking Charge Notice from Parking Eye telling me that I have been charged £85 for the overstay. The staff in Camden Town told me that they could do nothing on this. This why come straight to you. As a regular customer of Morrison’s Supermarket, I Do Not think that I deserve the way how I been treated. I would not do my shopping at Morrison’s again until the charge has been cancelled. I would also advise all my family and friend not shopping at Morrion’s as they might been fined £85 for parking in the supermarket.

Yours Sincerely

THE REGISTERED KEEPER

Might this be more persuasive?

Dear Mr. Dalton Phillips,

PakingEye Reference No. xxxxxxx/xxxxx

I went shopping at Morrison’s on 21 October 2013 at Camden Town. During the shopping trip, my girlfriend becameunwell and we decided to stay in the Cafe till she felt better.

Two weeks later, I received a Parking Charge Notice from Parking Eye telling me that I have been charged £85 for the overstay. Your staff in Camden Town told me that they could do nothing to help when I went back to see them. This why come straight to you.

Although I don't still have the receipts, I do have my bank statement that shows I did shop at the store. Should you require sight of it, I would be happy to send you a copy.

As a regular customer of Morrison’s Supermarket, and given the circumstances, I think that discretion should be applied in this case and am disappointed that your staff felt disinclined to help.

You will understand that I am reluctant to do my shopping at Morrison’s again until the charge has been cancelled. I have the support of my family and other friends who have agreed to follow suit and are equally unwilling to put themselves in the potential danger of being penalised with a £85 charge for any unavoidable overstay such as mine only to find the store unwilling to offer any discretion to a regular customer.

As said, I would be grateful for your assistance in this matter.
Yours sincerely



Then sign your actual name

Coupon-mad

That's a stronger letter, yes.

And yy2uk make sure you send the RIGHT POPLA appeal!!

barbsch

yy2uk wrote: »

Thanks so much everyone.
Guy Dad, the letters you helped me to write makes a huge difference. Thank you very much.

I will update the post once I got the reply.





Thank you so much for your prompt reply, Redx and Guy Dad. will do the work soon.

Hello Everyone,

I am new to this website, I got the PCN about 2 weeks after I visited a Morrison in North London for overstayed about 1 hour(2 hours free). My gf and I went there to get some softdrink, she felt sick at the time so I decided to stay in cafe for a while till she felt better. I did not kept any receipt, the bank statement only shows that the money has been collected 2 days after. I follow the instruction of how to appeal to parking eye from this website. However, I got a reply from them telling me they refused it and they also provide a few pages of FAQ's telling me why my argument is wrong. I will scan them and upload them here later.

here's the link of scan files in pdf.
well it seem I can not post the link, it might the same as everyone else's letter. so it wont matter



Now, I have the POPLA reference number do I only need to fill the form and send it back and just wait? It said that use my own word to write a letter to them is better, but as a foreign language to me, is it better to copy and paste the sample letter from other forum members?

Many Thanks

hi,
pls read my post re just won an appeal.
I think you need to write your own argument why you think the charge is wrong. And I think that is because they cannot make a case for any losses incurred to Morrisons!
Good luck!

Coupon-mad

pls read my post re just won an appeal.
I think you need to write your own argument why you think the charge is wrong. And I think that is because they cannot make a case for any losses incurred to Morrisons!
Good luck!

No, I have written a personalised POPLA appeal for this poster already. He just needs to copy it & print it out with the verification POPLA code written on it first.

yy2uk

I have one question for the POPLA letter, do I need to sign the letter &/or the popla appeal form?

Or only print name like: 'JAMES MAY' or just ' THE REGISTERED KEEPER' ?



Thank you very much.