vs Highview - POPLA Evidence pack

bazster

Yes, that was a terrific spot Dee!

bazster

I'd add another point regarding the GPEOL:

A parking charge cannot be used to manufacture a loss where none existed, and yet this is exactly what Highview has attempted. It is circular, it is specious, and it most certainly isn't genuine.

youseeme

Thanks bazster I have added that last point as well. Thanks Dee also, I added in the mistake on the 2hr 30mins difference.

:T

abacab

They are grasping at straws now with the list of charges,having previously having each popla case lost on a general list of charges,without defining any of them.
My pack was the same as yours on signage,except the car was parked in Car park B,so wrong signage supplied.
Maybe they will start employing somebody on Quality control to deal with the !!!! up's ,and list a charge for that.

youseeme

Well they have responded to my points with the following 'evidence', do you think I should add anything or just let it play out now?

Highview email to Popla:
I emailed stating the driver of the vehicle was a customer...
Regarding point 1; the bank statement should be disregarded as an appeal on these grounds was never made to ourselves. In any event, cancellation of the Notice on these grounds would be at our discretion and as a goodwill gesture only.

I emailed stating Dee's point about the 2hr to 2hr 30mins discrepancy...
Regarding point 5; an administrative error was made in the rejection letter where it stated the time limit on site was 2 hours when in fact it is 2 and a half hours. The signs on site all state 2 and a half hours as seen in the photographs in our evidence pack. In any event, this vehicle was on site for 2 hours and 44 minutes and so exceeded the time limit.

Thanks

Redx

as mentioned in the fistral beach court judgment, on site is not "parked" so the parking event could have been exactly 2.5 hours and 14 minutes to find a space to park plus departure time waiting to actually exit the car park having vacated the spot , especially if its a busy day

bazster

If that's really all they said then let it ride, these are hardly significant points.

bazster

Except of course for Redx' excellent point. You could respond that "I note the operator's contention that the vehicle was 'on site' for 2 hours and 44 minutes. Being 'on-site' is not parking, and it is perfectly conceivable that for 14 minutes or more while the vehicle was on-site the driver was looking for and driving to a parking space, and later leaving the parking space and exiting the car park. The operator has adduced no evidence that the vehicle was actually parked for a duration exceeding 2 hours 30 minutes. I refer you to case 3JD08399 in the Altrincham County Court where District Judge Hayes ruled that driving around looking for a space is not parking: http://nebula.wsimg.com/c289944f81b4afb375a97d05d5a80df6?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1 "

fisherjim

Highview really are a bunch of arrogant idiots aren't they, surely if they were to claim loss of business (to someone, God knows who), the driver would also need to have been parked in a car park that was 100% full too!

bazster

fisherjim wrote: »

Highview really are a bunch of arrogant idiots aren't they, surely if they were to claim loss of business (to someone, God knows who), the driver would also need to have been parked in a car park that was 100% full too!

Which still wouldn't prove that someone else actually drove in looking for a space during the period of the alleged overstay, or that the mysterious unknown shopper would've spent any money, or indeed that the driver of the OP's car didn't spend more than the average spend anyway purely during the period of the alleged overstay!

But even if, in the parallel universe occupied by Highview, all of those things were provable, which of the (doubtless many) retailers on the site actually incurred the loss? Because Highview sure as hell didn't.