Aldi/ParkingEye PCN

cyberbird

I've received a PCN because I didn't enter my car reg. into Aldi's machine. I don't have a receipt & I paid by cash. My stay was within the hour and a half that you get if you enter the car reg.

I've read the newbies thread on all this and had my letter written and ready to go but then did a little more reading and see that ParkingEye are using their victory in the case ParkingEye v Beavis case to influence new cases.

Also, I see that BPA have dropped the requirement for a charge to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

I'm now concerned that the 100% success rate advertised in the newbie post is perhaps dated advice and that things are now in the balance.

What are the latest thoughts?

Coupon-mad

Good research (better than some people who post about having a court claim!) but no worries - PE cancel when they see the template appeal, or at POPLA stage.

PE are only influencing court cases - this isn't a court case.

POPLA cases are not won or lost on the BPA CoP anyway - the Assessors consider the applicable law & facts. Case law hasn't changed and nor has POPLA's view. Stuff the BPA's view, it matters not - 'no GPEOL' still wins and PE still throw in the towel!.

cyberbird

Thanks Coupon-mad.

So if I appeal am I agreeing that the decision by POPLA is binding? I cannot then go to court to dispute?

I have read the ParkingEye v Beavis decision and see that the appeal only deals with the issue of the fee/penalty being excessive. My main argument is that I am deemed to be interested enough when going shopping and using that stores car park to look around for signs, go over to a sign and read it as well as the small print and that I am deemed to have accepted the terms.

Have the courts just accepted that this 'contract' is binding? The only defence being signage is insufficient, the risk of a charge is not transparent and the wording is ambiguous?

I know the Beavis case is not binding but I think it is going to be pretty persuasive. Do you know of any other cases where these arguments have been successful?

I personally think that Beavis should have asked the CA for leave to appeal the other arguments made too. Even if the current appeal is successful it will probably only mean a smaller charge/fine.

Umkomaas

So if I appeal am I agreeing that the decision by POPLA is binding? I cannot then go to cour

POPLA is only binding on the PPC, not the motorist. It hasn't gone further than that, nor should it!

no worries - PE cancel when they see the template appeal, or at POPLA stage.

Enough said?

cyberbird

Looking for further advice.

I sent my appeal (from newbies thread) on 17th and have a certificate of posting. Yesterday I received a PCN reminder. Is it advisable to remind PE (with proof of posting) that I have already raised an appeal?

Where would I stand if PE deny receiving my appeal?

Also, I've seen from another thread that POPLA seem not to have considered a rebuttal submission when making their judgement. I would therefore like to be prepared and put as much of my argument in the POPLA appeal.

Is there any way I can get PE to give me a PEOL? They have not even indicated that they are seeking damages or whether they are claiming a contractual fee. Is there any way I can force their hand on that point?

Another nagging concern re. rebuttal and the POPLA process. How do I know that PE have submitted the same defence to POPLA as they send to me?

Coupon-mad

No, do nothing, The reminder is standard. You should have appealed online to PE, why waste a stamp? You could always put it in online now too, to make sure.

Is there any way I can get PE to give me a PEOL?

Why would you open a can of worms? You know they don't defend our POPLA appeals.

cyberbird

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Why would you open a can of worms? You know they don't defend our POPLA appeals.

Thanks for responding.

I'm just considering the possibility that PE have changed their approach.

They may now be defending some claims on the basis of a contractual fee rather than damages. If things are clear before I send my case in to POPLA it doesn't have to cover all options and I can re-evaluate the strength of my case. If I can't appeal on a GPEOL basis I will go and start taking pictures of signage, measuring distances and the size of lettering. I think I have an angle taking that approach but it will be more work and I've not seen anyone succeeding with such an approach.

I've also seen the recent flawed decision at POPLA where the assessor declines the appeal because the PEOL calculation adds up and only includes relevant costs. If I know whether PE have amended their calculations in the light of this I can concentrate more on the reasonableness of the PEOL rather than it not actually being a PEOL.

This particular case is perhaps fairly new in that the "contract" allows for 1.5 hours free parking if you put your reg. number in a machine. This is a new system at the Aldi by us anyway. The car was parked for less than 1.5 hours. Perhaps PE claim in these cases on a contractual fee basis?

Also, I'm not sure how long these things take when they go to POPLA but we may have a decision from the ParkingEye v Beavis case which may change things.

I know that most of these things just fizzle out but now that this has annoyed me I want to give it my best shot.

bazster

For God's sake just do the standard stuff, it works.

Umkomaas

You seem to be looking for problems - and exposing them here. PE read these forums (they have a specially dedicated staff member), and if they can identify you, then maybe they might just provide you with what you (don't) want.

They haven't bothered to respond to POPLA appeals guided via the forums for many months. But if you keep poking the wasps' nest .............

POPLA appeals dealt with in ~ 6 weeks;
PE/Beavis - February 2015

cyberbird

bazster wrote: »

For God's sake just do the standard stuff, it works.

This is important to me. I'm not disputing these charges to be a nuisance to Aldi/PE, I'm disputing them because I don't think they are proportionate or fair.

I want to account for any differences to the norm. Arguments and approaches that have worked in the past may no longer be the best way to go.

Fruitcake

cyberbird wrote: »

This is important to me. I'm not disputing these charges to be a nuisance to Aldi/PE, I'm disputing them because I don't think they are proportionate or fair.

I want to account for any differences to the norm. Arguments and approaches that have worked in the past may no longer be the best way to go.

Arguments and approaches that have worked for two years are still going to work as long as you don't give these scammers ammunition that could hurt you at PoPLA.

PLEASE don't go looking for problems that don't exist in case it mucks things up for you and for others. What we don't want is all the good work done by regulars to be undone because someone decides to stir the poo and give PPCs ideas they hadn't thought about.

Please stick to the appeal process in the NEWBIES thread. It works so don't try to fix it.