We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Parking Eye POPLA appeal
smetf
Posts: 367 Forumite
Hi,
I have appealed against a PCN received from Parking Eye with no success. I am now at the POPLA appeal stage and I am hoping that someone can cast an eye over my draft appeal and make sure I have not missed anything important out.
The car was parked in a free car park for customers only. I have used parts of other appeals found on this amazing thread and tried to adapt it to my circumstances.
Thanks in advance!
Re: ParkingEye PCN, reference code xxxxxxxxxx
POPLA Code:
I am the registered keeper and I wish to appeal a recent parking charge from ParkingEye. I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:
1) The Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
2) No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers
3) The signage was not readable because it was too high so there was no valid contract formed between ParkingEye and the driver
4) The ANPR system is unreliable and neither synchronised nor accurate
1) The Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
Their sign states the charge is for 'not complying with the terms and conditions' so this Operator must prove the charge to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The car park is provided “free” to all genuine customers. The car was parked in such a way as to cause absolutely no damage or obstruction and therefore no loss arose from this incident.
This Operator cannot demonstrate any initial quantifiable loss. The parking charge must be an estimate of likely losses flowing from the alleged breach in order to be potentially enforceable. Where there is an initial loss directly caused by the presence of a vehicle in breach of the conditions (e.g. loss of revenue from failure to pay a tariff) this loss will be obvious. An initial loss is fundamental to a parking charge and, without it, costs incurred by issuing the parking charge notice cannot be said to have been caused by the driver's alleged breach. Heads of cost such as normal operational costs and tax-deductible back office functions, debt collection, etc. cannot possibly flow as a direct consequence of this parking event. The Operator would have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued, and would have had many of the same business overheads even if no vehicles breached any terms at all.
The ParkingEye Notice to Keeper alleges '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. This might be, for example, a reasonable sum based purely upon the alleged lost parking revenue, or even loss of retail revenue at a shopping centre if another car was prevented from parking. However, this is not the case because the occupants of the car recall that the car park was approximately a third full on arrival and almost empty when the driver left.
The Operator cannot reasonably claim a broad percentage of their entire business running costs as they operate various different arrangements, some where they pay a landowner a huge amount akin to a 'fishing licence' to catch motorists and some where they have pay and display, and others which are free car parks. Given that ParkingEye charge the same lump sum for a 30 minute overstay as they would for 3 hours, and the same fixed charge applies to any alleged contravention (whether serious/damaging or trifling), it is clear there has been no regard paid to establishing that this charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss caused by this incident in this car park.
The DfT Guidance and the BPA Code of Practice require that a parking charge for an alleged breachmust be an estimate of losses flowing from the incident. ParkingEye cannot change this requirement so they have no option but to show POPLA their genuine pre-estimate of loss for this charge, not some subsequently penned 'commercial justification' statement they may have devised afterwards (since this would not be a pre-estimate):
The British Parking Association Code of Practice uses the word 'MUST':
"19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer.''
Neither is this charge 'commercially justified'. In answer to that proposition from a PPC which had got over-excited about the ParkingEye v Beavis small claims decision (now being taken to the Court of Appeal by Mr Beavis anyway) POPLA Assessor Chris Adamson has stated in June 2014 that:
''In each case that I have seen from the higher courts,...it is made clear that a charge cannot be commercially justified where the dominant purpose of the charge is to deter the other party from breach. This is most clearly stated in Lordsvale Finance Plc v Bank of Zambia [1996] QB 752, quoted approvingly at paragraph 15 in Cine Bes Filmcilik Ve Yapimcilik & Anor v United International Pictures & Ors [2003] EWHC Civ 1669 when Coleman J states a clause should not be struck down as a penalty, “if the increase could in the circumstances be explained as commercially justifiable, provided always that its dominant purpose was not to deter the other party from breach”.
This supports the principle that the aim of damages is to be compensatory, beginning with the idea that the aim is to put the parties in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed. It also seems that courts have been unwilling to allow clauses designed to deter breach as this undermines the binding nature of the initial promise made. Whilst the courts have reasonably moved away from a strict interpretation of what constitutes a genuine pre-estimate of loss, recognising that in complex commercial situations an accurate pre-estimate will not always be possible, nevertheless it remains that a charge for damages must be compensatory in nature rather than punitive.''
2) No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers
I believe that this Operator has no proprietary interest in the land, so they have no standing to make contracts with drivers in their own right, nor to pursue charges for breach in their own name. In the absence of such title, ParkingEye must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at court level. This has not been produced by the operator in their rejection statement so I have no proof that such a document is in existence. I contend that ParkingEye merely hold a bare licence to supply and maintain (non compliant) signs and to post out 'tickets' as a deterrent. A commercial site agent for the true landholder has no automatic standing nor authority in their own right which would meet the strict requirements of section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice.
I therefore put ParkingEye to strict proof to provide POPLA and myself with an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between ParkingEye and the landowner. This is required so that POPLA and myself can check that it allows this Operator to make contracts with drivers themselves and provides them with full authority to pursue charges, including a right to pursue them in court in their own name. Please note that a witness statement to the effect that a contract is in place will not be sufficient to provide sufficient detail of the contract terms (such as revenue sharing, genuine intentions of these restrictions and charges, set amounts to charge for each stated contravention, etc.). In any case, ParkingEye's witness statements have been exposed as photocopy templates from clients who may well have no knowledge of any individual parking event and the signatory may never even have seen the contract.
3)The signage was not readable because it was too high so there was no valid contract formed between ParkingEye and the driver
The only signs are up on poles approximately 8 to 10 feet from the ground, I believe that ParkingEye place their signs so high that terms would only be legible if a driver got out of a car and climbed a stepladder, holding a magnifying glass to try to read them. Any photos supplied by ParkingEye to POPLA will no doubt show the signs with the misleading aid of a close up camera and the angle may well not show how high the signs are. As such, I require ParkingEye to state the height of each sign in their response and to show contemporaneous photo evidence of these signs from eye level.
Unreadable signage breaches Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice which states that terms on entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead. A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms beforehand. Nothing about this Operator's onerous inflated 'parking charges' was sufficiently prominent and it is clear that the requirements for forming a contract (i.e. consideration flowing between the two parties, offer, acceptance and fairness and transparency of terms offered in good faith) were not satisfied.
4) The ANPR system is unreliable and neither synchronised nor accurate
If ParkingEye's ANPR records are completely reliable (which I contest) then this Operator claims the car was parked for around 35 minutes. Yet their evidence shows no parking time, merely photos of a car driving in and out.
This Operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice and to have signs stating how the data will be stored/used. 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 terms of ANPR logs and maintenance and I put this Operator to strict proof of full ANPR compliance.
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 and to show how these camera timings are synchronised.
I request that my appeal is allowed.
I have appealed against a PCN received from Parking Eye with no success. I am now at the POPLA appeal stage and I am hoping that someone can cast an eye over my draft appeal and make sure I have not missed anything important out.
The car was parked in a free car park for customers only. I have used parts of other appeals found on this amazing thread and tried to adapt it to my circumstances.
Thanks in advance!
Re: ParkingEye PCN, reference code xxxxxxxxxx
POPLA Code:
I am the registered keeper and I wish to appeal a recent parking charge from ParkingEye. I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:
1) The Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
2) No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers
3) The signage was not readable because it was too high so there was no valid contract formed between ParkingEye and the driver
4) The ANPR system is unreliable and neither synchronised nor accurate
1) The Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
Their sign states the charge is for 'not complying with the terms and conditions' so this Operator must prove the charge to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The car park is provided “free” to all genuine customers. The car was parked in such a way as to cause absolutely no damage or obstruction and therefore no loss arose from this incident.
This Operator cannot demonstrate any initial quantifiable loss. The parking charge must be an estimate of likely losses flowing from the alleged breach in order to be potentially enforceable. Where there is an initial loss directly caused by the presence of a vehicle in breach of the conditions (e.g. loss of revenue from failure to pay a tariff) this loss will be obvious. An initial loss is fundamental to a parking charge and, without it, costs incurred by issuing the parking charge notice cannot be said to have been caused by the driver's alleged breach. Heads of cost such as normal operational costs and tax-deductible back office functions, debt collection, etc. cannot possibly flow as a direct consequence of this parking event. The Operator would have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued, and would have had many of the same business overheads even if no vehicles breached any terms at all.
The ParkingEye Notice to Keeper alleges '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. This might be, for example, a reasonable sum based purely upon the alleged lost parking revenue, or even loss of retail revenue at a shopping centre if another car was prevented from parking. However, this is not the case because the occupants of the car recall that the car park was approximately a third full on arrival and almost empty when the driver left.
The Operator cannot reasonably claim a broad percentage of their entire business running costs as they operate various different arrangements, some where they pay a landowner a huge amount akin to a 'fishing licence' to catch motorists and some where they have pay and display, and others which are free car parks. Given that ParkingEye charge the same lump sum for a 30 minute overstay as they would for 3 hours, and the same fixed charge applies to any alleged contravention (whether serious/damaging or trifling), it is clear there has been no regard paid to establishing that this charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss caused by this incident in this car park.
The DfT Guidance and the BPA Code of Practice require that a parking charge for an alleged breachmust be an estimate of losses flowing from the incident. ParkingEye cannot change this requirement so they have no option but to show POPLA their genuine pre-estimate of loss for this charge, not some subsequently penned 'commercial justification' statement they may have devised afterwards (since this would not be a pre-estimate):
The British Parking Association Code of Practice uses the word 'MUST':
"19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer.''
Neither is this charge 'commercially justified'. In answer to that proposition from a PPC which had got over-excited about the ParkingEye v Beavis small claims decision (now being taken to the Court of Appeal by Mr Beavis anyway) POPLA Assessor Chris Adamson has stated in June 2014 that:
''In each case that I have seen from the higher courts,...it is made clear that a charge cannot be commercially justified where the dominant purpose of the charge is to deter the other party from breach. This is most clearly stated in Lordsvale Finance Plc v Bank of Zambia [1996] QB 752, quoted approvingly at paragraph 15 in Cine Bes Filmcilik Ve Yapimcilik & Anor v United International Pictures & Ors [2003] EWHC Civ 1669 when Coleman J states a clause should not be struck down as a penalty, “if the increase could in the circumstances be explained as commercially justifiable, provided always that its dominant purpose was not to deter the other party from breach”.
This supports the principle that the aim of damages is to be compensatory, beginning with the idea that the aim is to put the parties in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed. It also seems that courts have been unwilling to allow clauses designed to deter breach as this undermines the binding nature of the initial promise made. Whilst the courts have reasonably moved away from a strict interpretation of what constitutes a genuine pre-estimate of loss, recognising that in complex commercial situations an accurate pre-estimate will not always be possible, nevertheless it remains that a charge for damages must be compensatory in nature rather than punitive.''
2) No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers
I believe that this Operator has no proprietary interest in the land, so they have no standing to make contracts with drivers in their own right, nor to pursue charges for breach in their own name. In the absence of such title, ParkingEye must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at court level. This has not been produced by the operator in their rejection statement so I have no proof that such a document is in existence. I contend that ParkingEye merely hold a bare licence to supply and maintain (non compliant) signs and to post out 'tickets' as a deterrent. A commercial site agent for the true landholder has no automatic standing nor authority in their own right which would meet the strict requirements of section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice.
I therefore put ParkingEye to strict proof to provide POPLA and myself with an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between ParkingEye and the landowner. This is required so that POPLA and myself can check that it allows this Operator to make contracts with drivers themselves and provides them with full authority to pursue charges, including a right to pursue them in court in their own name. Please note that a witness statement to the effect that a contract is in place will not be sufficient to provide sufficient detail of the contract terms (such as revenue sharing, genuine intentions of these restrictions and charges, set amounts to charge for each stated contravention, etc.). In any case, ParkingEye's witness statements have been exposed as photocopy templates from clients who may well have no knowledge of any individual parking event and the signatory may never even have seen the contract.
3)The signage was not readable because it was too high so there was no valid contract formed between ParkingEye and the driver
The only signs are up on poles approximately 8 to 10 feet from the ground, I believe that ParkingEye place their signs so high that terms would only be legible if a driver got out of a car and climbed a stepladder, holding a magnifying glass to try to read them. Any photos supplied by ParkingEye to POPLA will no doubt show the signs with the misleading aid of a close up camera and the angle may well not show how high the signs are. As such, I require ParkingEye to state the height of each sign in their response and to show contemporaneous photo evidence of these signs from eye level.
Unreadable signage breaches Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice which states that terms on entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead. A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms beforehand. Nothing about this Operator's onerous inflated 'parking charges' was sufficiently prominent and it is clear that the requirements for forming a contract (i.e. consideration flowing between the two parties, offer, acceptance and fairness and transparency of terms offered in good faith) were not satisfied.
4) The ANPR system is unreliable and neither synchronised nor accurate
If ParkingEye's ANPR records are completely reliable (which I contest) then this Operator claims the car was parked for around 35 minutes. Yet their evidence shows no parking time, merely photos of a car driving in and out.
This Operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice and to have signs stating how the data will be stored/used. 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 terms of ANPR logs and maintenance and I put this Operator to strict proof of full ANPR compliance.
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 and to show how these camera timings are synchronised.
I request that my appeal is allowed.
Emergency fund 14k Home/ holiday fund 7k Mortgage £44,592
- MFW 2022 #35 10,000
- MFW 2023 #3 10358.97
- MFW 2024 #3 10000
- MFW 2025 #3 7682.31/10000
- MFW 2024 #3 10000
- MFW 2023 #3 10358.97
0
Comments
-
Hiya - seems rather long and repetitive!Have only lookedat the first 2 paragraphs. Have made a suggestion as yr "gepol" goes on in a loop. Gotta go to bed!
Re: ParkingEye PCN, reference code xxxxxxxxxx
POPLA Code:
I am the registered keeper and I wish to appeal a recent parking charge from ParkingEye. I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:
1) The Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
2) No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers
3) The signage was not readable because it was too high so there was no valid contract formed between ParkingEye and the driver
4) The ANPR system is unreliable and neither synchronised nor accurate
1) The Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
The car park is provided “free” to all genuine customers. The car was parked in such a way as to cause absolutely no damage or obstruction and therefore no loss arose from this incident.
The ParkingEye Notice to Keeper alleges '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. This might be, for example, a reasonable sum based purely upon the alleged lost parking revenue, or even loss of retail revenue at a shopping centre if another car was prevented from parking. However, this is not the case because the occupants of the car recall that the car park was approximately a third full on arrival and almost empty when the driver left.
This charge is punitive and unreasonable.
2) No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers
I believe that this Operator has no proprietary interest in the land, so they have no standing to make contracts with drivers in their own right, nor to pursue charges for breach in their own name. In the absence of such title, ParkingEye must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at court level. This has not been produced by the operator in their rejection statement so I have no proof that such a document is in existence. I contend that ParkingEye merely hold a bare licence to supply and maintain (non compliant) signs and to post out 'tickets' as a deterrent. A commercial site agent for the true landholder has no automatic standing nor authority in their own right which would meet the strict requirements of section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice.
I therefore put ParkingEye to strict proof to provide POPLA and myself with an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between ParkingEye and the landowner. This is required so that POPLA and myself can check that it allows this Operator to make contracts with drivers themselves and provides them with full authority to pursue charges, including a right to pursue them in court in their own name. Please note that a witness statement to the effect that a contract is in place will not be sufficient to provide sufficient detail of the contract terms (such as revenue sharing, genuine intentions of these restrictions and charges, set amounts to charge for each stated contravention, etc.).
3)The signage was not readable because it was too high so there was no valid contract formed between ParkingEye and the driver
The only signs are up on poles approximately 8 to 10 feet from the ground, I believe that ParkingEye place their signs so high that terms would only be legible if a driver got out of a car and climbed a stepladder, holding a magnifying glass to try to read them. Any photos supplied by ParkingEye to POPLA will no doubt show the signs with the misleading aid of a close up camera and the angle may well not show how high the signs are. As such, I require ParkingEye to state the height of each sign in their response and to show contemporaneous photo evidence of these signs from eye level.
Unreadable signage breaches Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice which states that terms on entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead. A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms beforehand. Nothing about this Operator's onerous inflated 'parking charges' was sufficiently prominent and it is clear that the requirements for forming a contract (i.e. consideration flowing between the two parties, offer, acceptance and fairness and transparency of terms offered in good faith) were not satisfied.
4) The ANPR system is unreliable and neither synchronised nor accurate
If ParkingEye's ANPR records are completely reliable (which I contest) then this Operator claims the car was parked for around 35 minutes. Yet their evidence shows no parking time, merely photos of a car driving in and out.
This Operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice and to have signs stating how the data will be stored/used. 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 terms of ANPR logs and maintenance and I put this Operator to strict proof of full ANPR compliance.
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 and to show how these camera timings are synchronised.
I request that my appeal is allowed.**********************************************
Trying to educate people to stop littering the country side in trail races!!!
**********************************************0 -
p.s. can you also prove you were a genuine customer? If you were not a customer, I'd get rid of that paragraph as well.**********************************************
Trying to educate people to stop littering the country side in trail races!!!
**********************************************0 -
I disagree. A customer is not necessarily someone who has bought an item. Whilst looking for an expensive item I will visit various shops and spend time looking at different versions of eg washing machine. In each shop I am a customer as I am looking to buy. I am doing research first though.
So I would leave it one. Again, like all appeal points it is for them to disprove rather than you to prove.
The original GPEOL,was long, but the suggested one short.
As it is PE I would ensure you have Beavis rebuttal in there. Likewise I am off to bed, but I will try and stop by if no one else has to help,with GPEOL tomorrow to see if it is ok to go as is.Newbie thread: go to the top of this page and find these words: Main site > MoneySavingExpert.com Forums > Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking. Click on words Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking. Newbie thread is the first post. Blue New Thread button is just above it to left.0 -
I agree with Dee that the longer GPEOL paragraphs are important!PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Properly read your original GPEOL and would include it as written. I see it did contain Beavis and as I was tired I had missed this.
As C-M did not offer any other point to make (and she would have done as she knows I am still learning on the more awkward POPLA statements), this is good to go and you should see off today.
Look forward to hearing another PSDSU win(which perhaps needs translation as it is a while since the explanation for this acronym has been explained -Parking S... Didn't show up)Newbie thread: go to the top of this page and find these words: Main site > MoneySavingExpert.com Forums > Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking. Click on words Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking. Newbie thread is the first post. Blue New Thread button is just above it to left.0 -
Listen to CM and Dee. They are far more experienced than me. Good luck with the appeal and let us know how you get on.**********************************************
Trying to educate people to stop littering the country side in trail races!!!
**********************************************0 -
Gertysingh, I am still quite new at this. C-M is the experienced one. I started posting only a few months ago and am still making mistakes. However I know a lot more than I did in March and moved from first stage appeal to basic POPLA ones, to beginning to loom at the nuances of the finer details etc.
It is good to see other new people taking a real interest too.Newbie thread: go to the top of this page and find these words: Main site > MoneySavingExpert.com Forums > Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking. Click on words Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking. Newbie thread is the first post. Blue New Thread button is just above it to left.0 -
You're doing great Dee.
Am trying to help keep threads alive where folks have tried to create a Popla. In my appeal, I had a much shorter gepol paragraph (in fact all of my points were much shorter). It was:
"The driver was a genuine customer of the store that day, and the sum being sought in relation to an overstay, in a free car park, bears absolutely no relation to any genuine pre-estimate of loss incurred by either the parking company or the landowner."
The PPC had submitted "the charge reflects the cost to our clients, both in terms of congestion caused at this site by drivers abusing the parking restrictions, and our fees for enforcing these restrictions,
whilst installing and maintaining the necessary equipment to do so.”
The assessor said:
"I find that whilst some heads of loss referred to by the Operator may fall within a genuine pre-estimate of loss, others do not. For example, whether or not the alleged breach occurred, the cost of installing and maintaining the Operator’s enforcement equipment would have been the same."
The appeal was allowed.
However smetf with the prospect of a new assessor reading your appeal (Just read Popla's annual report, that Popla have recruited more assessors this year), better to stick to the proven method. And to back Dee up - C-M is the more senior of us in this thread. Listen to her
**********************************************
Trying to educate people to stop littering the country side in trail races!!!
**********************************************0 -
Thanks for the advice, I am putting the appeal in today. I will let you know how I get on!Emergency fund 14k Home/ holiday fund 7k Mortgage £44,592
- MFW 2022 #35 10,000
- MFW 2023 #3 10358.97
- MFW 2024 #3 10000
- MFW 2025 #3 7682.31/10000
- MFW 2024 #3 10000
- MFW 2023 #3 10358.97
0 - MFW 2022 #35 10,000
-
Received an email from POPLA, it seems that Parking Eye didn't offer any evidence against me.
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.
Shehla Pirwany
Assessor
Just wanted to say thanks to everyone on this board for their input.
Keep up the fight!!
:beer:Emergency fund 14k Home/ holiday fund 7k Mortgage £44,592- MFW 2022 #35 10,000
- MFW 2023 #3 10358.97
- MFW 2024 #3 10000
- MFW 2025 #3 7682.31/10000
- MFW 2024 #3 10000
- MFW 2023 #3 10358.97
0 - MFW 2022 #35 10,000
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards