Parking Eye Reply - They say we can't win - Please Help

Coupon-mad

14wrence wrote: »

Thanks for all the info guys.

As I may have said at the beginning of all this. The driver parked there twice on the trot. Unknowing that he could not while the shop was closed.

Anyway, first letter they sent - which I discussed earlier, and got a POPLA code, and have since sent off the POPLA appeal (shown earlier in the thread). However the second is a complete change of tact from PE.

They are now saying in their response, that as I have called the driver "the driver", it sounds like somebody else was driving the car. And that they now want to let them know who the driver was. And if car was stolen they want a crime number as further evidence. until then, they are putting this charge on hold for 14 days.

Are they trying to trick me into telling them the driver. I thought it was none of their business.

If any PPC asks who was driving at any point, then tell them to go swivel or wait for a rejection letter. They can put it on hold all they like - I would just wait (they'll be busy right now).

Everyone should leave in their POPLA appeal, the points about the omissions of wording in the NTK as long as you haven't said who was driving. Those points could win you the appeal, with the exception of the 'creditor' point because they do identify themselves as creditor.

14wrence

Coupon-mad wrote: »

If any PPC asks who was driving at any point, then tell them to go swivel or wait for a rejection letter. They can put it on hold all they like - I would just wait (they'll be busy right now).

Everyone should leave in their POPLA appeal, the points about the omissions of wording in the NTK as long as you haven't said who was driving. Those points could win you the appeal, with the exception of the 'creditor' point because they do identify themselves as creditor.

In an earlier reply from Umkomaas it was said the Ntk point is quite well countered by parking eye, so i already left it out now of the first appeal. Happy to put it back in the next appeal, but not sure I want popla accusing me of not knowing what i'm on about as it is easy to counter for PE.

Grimble

Read Coupon Mad post above, it tells you there.

The_Deep

Of course you can win, especially if they refuse to show/redact their contract in a County Court, especially if they place their signs behind trees, especially if they do not have planning permission for their cameras, especially if their cameras have not been properly maintained

They lose far more than they win. Do not believe otherwise.

14wrence

Hi All,

They have sent an A4 envelope stuffed to the brim with the evidence they have given to Popla for the first appeal.

They go into great detail about how accurate the camera's are and the NTK.

They also have mentioned in a page of A4 about the Beavis case and how it is a fair amount..

Lastly they have sent many pictures of the site and the signage and that it is adequate. They seem to think that the one street light behind the entrance sign - facing the street may I add and not the sign - is adequate.

Should I be worried?

If anyone wants a copy of the evidence sent to them privately to take a look do let me know. But appears Parking eye want to fight this.

Has anyone else, had their huge evidence pack sent and still won?

Redx

I would say that everybody that has had a PE popla appeal has had the evidence pack that is leading to extinction for the worlds tree population !

suggest you find recent rebuttals and counter it, including mentioning that the Beavis case is being appealed at the Supreme Court

14wrence

Redx wrote: »

I would say that everybody that has had a PE popla appeal has had the evidence pack that is leading to extinction for the worlds tree population !

suggest you find recent rebuttals and counter it, including mentioning that the Beavis case is being appealed at the Supreme Court

Thanx Redx,

Should I counter their evidence now I have received this? and send some more info to Popla, before they make their decision? Could anyone be so kind as to post links to what I could say regarding the Beavis case?

Also i think they actually help prove the lighting is very shoddy for their signage in the middle of the night.

14wrence

Is there any templates or examples among these threads to counter evidence?

Redx

try the word REBUTTALS in the search box, see what comes up

as for Beavis, he only has a few days to submit his appeal to the Supreme Court, so perhaps you can ask for a stay at popla pending this Supreme Court appeal outcome , unless your other points can let them make a decision (like signage etc)

bear in mind that we are in limbo at the moment, due to that CoA court case and Beavis, so dont expect definitive answers, plus PE know this

Herzlos

have a search for "parking eye rebuttal".

Most of the tome they sent you is rubbish, it's entire point is to put you off and pretty much all of it can be refuted.