Telford Bridge Retail park

Marinka

HELP!
As most people here I had the unfortunate letter in the post a few weeks back from Parkingeye. I am absolutely furious as I have never seen any signs in that car park at all. I'm really hoping you will be able to help. As I really can't afford to pay $100 pound fine they are unlawfully demanding.
As advised I sent them the appeal letter that didn't get me anywhere and they've sent me the response that was basically implying that I have no chance winning the POPLA appeal on any of the counts suggested in the forum. So as you can understand I'm really unnerved, worried and stressed about the whole situation. Here is my POPLa appeal that I've put together. Could you please please have a look at it before I send it off:

Dear POPLA Assessor,
Ref: Parkingeye parking charge notice, verification code



I am the registered keeper and wish to appeal a recent parking charge from ParkingEye. [FONT=&quot]I have been using Telford Bridge Retail Park for more than 5 years now and the driver and her elderly passenger have visited the retail park on xx of xxxx 2014, apparently overstayed the maximum time allowed. I believe that I’m not liable for this parking charge due to the following:[/FONT]

1. [FONT=&quot]ParkingEye is demanding a parking charge amount of 100.00! This is even more extortionate than an average parking fine. And in my circumstances as a single mother this would form half of my monthly disposable income. As far as I am aware 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, it is clear there has been no regard paid to establishing that this charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.[/FONT]

1. 2. [FONT=&quot]In my day to day job I often have to use the following principal of Office of Fair Trading 'Guidance for the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999'[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]''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...''[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]''A term is unfair if:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5.1 Unfair terms are not enforceable against the consumer.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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.''[/FONT]

3. [FONT=&quot]As I have mentioned previously I have been coming to the fore mentioned retail park for over 5 years now and I have never seen any signs explaining that this car park is chargeable. I believe that the signage was not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]I[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]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). [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Any alleged contract 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. Furthermore this is not the first claim that the signs are not visible at this car park, there have been other users of the Telford Retail Park car park that claim to have had the same problem in the past.[/FONT]

In anticipation xxxxxx

I hope you have a chance to look over this tomorrow as I would like to send it off on Friday to make sure I'm within the 28 days allowed.
Thank you.

Hot_Bring

Apologies but this appeal is wrong, wrong wrong. Get rid of the "mitigating" circumstances and at the VERY minimum use "no genuine pre-estimate of loss".

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

Please read the introductory thread on the forum. You can take the wording from there, checking through in case there is anything that seems wrong.

It is based on a knowledge of the law and an understanding of what works.v unfortunately, popla are not interested in what normal people would think of a fair appeals service but use a rather narrow legalistic view.

Post again, but don't send what you have written, it doesn't have the magic words guaranteed to win.

da_rule

Please use the template that has been drawn up by coupon-mad, it works (post 5 on this thread: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/63857139#Comment_63857139). Just delete the first sentence about Morrisons and the person being taken ill and add in your vehicle details and POPLA code.

Point 1 of the letter also makes a point about the car park being free (not a pay and display) so delete this if the car park in question was a pay and display. Also read through it and change anything else that doesn't apply to you. For example, if you were ticketed with a ticket on the windscreen rather than a letter through the post then the ANPR section might not be appropriate.

Also, do not mention anything about mitigation. POPLA cannot consider it so you are just wasting time and ink.

JJ_Egan

Is that the teleford bridge retail park that advertises 588 free parking spaces ??.
Small print then says time limit three hours .
http://www.telfordbridgeretailpark.co.uk/ContentFull.aspx?ContentName=Customer-Information

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

What ever you do dont send that appeal

ColliesCarer

Hi Marinka

Unfortunately your appeal letter is mostly about the circumstances and this won't win. These types of arguments are known as mitigation and POPLA will not even allow them.

Winning arguments must be based on the relevant laws. This forum will help you to put together the right kind of appeal.

So 1st check your POPLA verification code using the link below - it will give you the date your appeal must be in by

http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/popla-code-checker/

Don't rush it - it can be submitted on-line at their web-site and by post.

It's very important to get it right - take a look at these


PARKINGEYE (FULL VERSION, CHUCK EVERYTHING AT THEM!) -
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/63857139#Comment_63857139

PARKINGEYE (MUCH MORE BASIC VERSION, SHORTER) -
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4790822

and other examples in the NEWBIES thread post number 3.

da_rule

Marinka, how long were you in the car park for?

Marinka

Thank you to everyone who posted a reply. I was there for just short of 4 hours. I was going to post the template provided by couponmad, but was worried about just copying the same letter. Will it work if I do?

da_rule

As long as you read it thoroughly and remove/amend anything that doesn't apply to you then there's no reason why it won't.

Redx

post a redacted copy of your popla appeal in here first, copy and paste it from notepad onto here, with no personal info , for checking, just to be on the safe side (considering your posts earlier)