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

14wrence

Redx wrote: »

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

So what happens if Beavis loses?

Redx

14wrence wrote: »

So what happens if Beavis loses?

if I had a crystal ball , I would tell you

as it is , if I knew the future I would not be on here, but I would be putting my lottery ticket on

as for your case, if you can win on other points, like signage or no locus standii (no contract), then the beavis case is not relevant, popla are already putting cases through that dont rely on Beavis anyway

the pe popla ones that were stayed seemed to be relying on not a gpeol

ps:- you can read what POPLA said about it here

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/london-councils-issue-clarifying.html

bear in mind that any Supreme Court appeal could take between 1 and 2 years to complete afaik , therefore popla would have one hell of a decision to make, especially as its changing to the Ombudsman service in a few months time I believe

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/News/british-parking-association-appoints-ombudsman-services-to-provide-popla

PNE4MYWIFE

Can someone enlighten me on this Beavis I keep hearing of? What\Who is it?

(Never mind, after a quick google search I found all I need to know, If you want something doing....)

Redx

been on telly programs about his parking case

plenty of info if you google him

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-32429649

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-32509849

also twitter

https://twitter.com/barrybeavis

also parking pranksters website too (google his blog site)

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/barry-beavis-chooses-john-de-waal-qc.html

he is now a legend in his own lifetime

Umkomaas

14wrence wrote: »

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

Here's an excellent example of how one poster dealt effectively and comprehensively with a PPC's Evidence Pack. I'm sure this will give you plenty of ideas on how to handle your case.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/67385911#Comment_67385911

And another one to consider.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=67402366&postcount=26

14wrence

If any of you kind people do have time to cast your eye over this I would really appreciate it. I am going to submit first thing in the morning.

Dear Sirs

Ref. POPLA appeal xxxxxxxxxx

In response to the "evidence pack" Parking Eye have submitted in support of their speculative and disputed invoice. I do not intend to address each and every point they have raised in detail as their submission is clearly a quickly hashed template, much of which is repetitive or indeed irrelevant to the matter at hand.

In making their assessment I ask the POPLA assessor to consider the following in further support of my original POPLA appeal.

1. GPEOL
There is no Genuine Pre-estimated of Loss breakdown included to show how they have come up with £100: As business costs are not losses and they cannot be passed down to a motorist as GPEOL. Parking Eye seem to infer that it is up to me to demonstrate how their £100 is not a GPEOL - I am not sure this is possible and is any case a moot point as the burden of proof is upon Parking Eye to demonstrate the loss that has occurred as a result of the alleged breach. Despite submitting this huge 'evidence' pack they have failed to do this.
The Department for Transport guidelines state that:

"Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken. Charges may not be set at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalise the driver."

There can be no losses to the landowner at all – as it was well out of the store’s opening hours.
I would conclude that Costs of Issuing the Notice, postage of Notice to Keeper, and Final Notice to Keeper, Admin and Man Hours are all business losses that Parking Eye is trying to recover. As is the 'remainder' to be paid back into office wages. Therefore, the charge is quite clearly to recover office losses. Regardless of Parking Eye 's stance on the 'fairness' of that fact.

There have been several invitations for Parking Eye to break-down their cost to highlight exactly which losses they have allegedly suffered. The vagaries of Parking Eye's response to this highlights that there is, in fact, no justification in a £100 or even a £60 charge for the alleged offence.
There seems to be no valid copy of an unredacted contract included between Parking Eye and the Car Park, which could include information about 'money changing hands' in the contract - thus hiding information that could be relevant to the costs calculation fails to meet the strict proof of contract terms needed. In any case, the document submitted which Parking Eye claim is an unredacted contract is dated after the alleged breach of contract took place.
In my appeal rejection Parking Eye claim the recent case, Parking Eye v Barry Beavis and Martin Wardley [2014]) heard at the Court of Appeal gives justification to their claim.
I contend that there are few similarities as the penalties imposed in my local authority car parks are £50 and this is reduced even after appeal by 50%.
Therefore I contend that the charge imposed by Parking Eye is indeed extravagant.

Parking Eye were making payments to that landowner for a parking management concession conferring what might be considered as landowner rights. It was argued by Parking Eye that it was necessary for them to recover these sums by the issuing of parking charge notices.
I contend that, unless a similar contract is in place with this landowner, there can be no argument in this case of commercial justification as no loss to them was involved.
The Beavis case is for a site where Parking Eye "rent" the land, the driver in this case was parked in a customer car park for a store, out of the store hours.

Finally I would state that the Beavis case is still subject to appeal and until this matter is finally resolved any claims by ParkingEye are without merit.
It's very clear from the information given that a 'Genuine pre-estimate of loss' as many of my points above have illustrated has not been provided. Nor has a break-down of the costs implied been provided. Only one figure of £85 mentioned on the Parking Eye vs Barry Beavis and Martin Wardley [2014]) case has been mentioned. This in itself is less than the £100 applied in this case and therefore shows that the amount here is extravagant.

2. SIGNAGE
It is simply not possible to read any signs whilst in a moving car at night time, and certainly not have read them sufficiently to have be deemed to fully understand the T&C's to which it is alleged I agreed as the registered keeper of the vehicle. Parking Eye's own 'evidence' photos (which I have attached again) show that that the car park is pitch black, and only through technology on their camera does light reflect from the number plate of the car. Apart from seeing that and the car’s illuminated lights, absolutely nothing at all can be seen from these photographs. Certainly no signage at all can be seen in any of the photos. You cannot even make out the outline of the car let alone deem the ambient lighting suitable to see and comprehend any signage.
Parking eye have also included in their “evidence pack” photographs of the signage taken during daylight hours at another time. I do not even know to be sure if this was the same signage as was in place at the time of the incident and would need to see proof of this.
The car park had no lighting in place and Parking Eye state that the ambient lighting coming from the street lighting is adequate enough to read their signs. They have attached evidence (which I have reattached) showing in particular the signs close to the street lighting.
There is 1 Parking Eye sign near to a street light. Every other sign is nowhere near any lighting so I have not reattached their signage plan, as those other signs are indisputably totally illegible at night.
The one sign nearest to the street lights, as is shown on one of the photographs is taken at an awkward angle and does not really show the proximity to the street light accurately. The other photograph shows the proximity of the sign to the street lights more adequately, and clearly shows the nearest street lights pole is over a metre away, the light itself is on top of a very tall pole, and faces out to the road and away not towards the Parking Eye sign. The other street light is quite far away and could not light up these signs.
There is no evidence to show how well the street lights actually show the signage at night time. Based on the evidence (photographs of the driver’s car) it would suggest the street lights at night do not light up any signage at all or that the council owned street lighting on this occasion was not operational at the time the driver entered the car park. I would also require evidence that the street lights are actually turned on at this time.
Again I point to Parking Eye’s own photographs which show the area to be pitch black.
All photographs of signage are taken during the day, and do not show the signs at night so is unsuitable evidence.
If they were taken with a camera with no flash the signage would be illegible from more than 2 metres away.
I respectfully request that this appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

Herzlos

I'd change this:

to which it is alleged I agreed as the registered keeper of the vehicle

to this:

to which it is alleged was agreed by the driver of the vehicle

Unless you've already identified yourself as driver.

You should also be disputing their assertion that they have authority to issue invoices, as they won't have included a useful contract.

Northlakes

More expert eyes will comment but I don't like the end sentence as it sounds like this is a criminal matter.

In my opinion remove 'and the charge dismissed'.

I think you have covered the subject well but I think we are in the dark of how POPLA will move forward post the Beavis initial appeal.
One thing though is very certain PE will not want to disclose contract details.

ColliesCarer

Some suggestions for you

Make this sentence a lead in heading in bold

Response to the "evidence pack" Parking Eye have submitted in support of their speculative and disputed invoice.

I do not intend to address each ........

1. GPEOL
.........I am not sure this is possible and is in any case a moot point as the burden of proof is upon Parking Eye to demonstrate the loss that has occurred as a result of the alleged breach.......


There can be no losses to the landowner at all as the time of the alleged parking incident was well outside [STRIKE]of[/STRIKE] the store’s opening hours.......


The Beavis case is for a site where Parking Eye "rent" the land, the driver in this case was allegedly parked in a customer car park for a store, out of the store hours...........



I would say this section needs some re-wording as it doesn't quite seem to make full sense as it is

There seems to be no valid copy of an unredacted contract included between Parking Eye and the Car Park, which could include information about 'money changing hands' in the contract - thus hiding information that could be relevant to the costs calculation fails to meet the strict proof of contract terms needed. In any case, the document submitted which Parking Eye claim is an unredacted contract is dated after the alleged breach of contract took place.


Perhaps something like :-

There also seems to be no valid copy of an unredacted contract included between Parking Eye and the Car Park owner, thus hiding information that could be relevant to the costs calculation because a valid unredacted copy could include information about 'money changing hands'. In any case, the document submitted which Parking Eye claim is an unredacted contract (which I refute) fails to meet the strict proof of contract terms needed and is dated after the alleged breach of contract took place.


Also did you raise a "no assignment of rights to bring claims in their own name" challenge in your POPLA?

If so you might want to repeat something about the lack of a valid contract in a separate heading of that topic - no assignment of rights is the next most common challenge to win POPLA appeals so you want to make it very clear to the assessor they haven't provided evidence of that and not have the point buried in a challenge about GPEOL in case the assessor misses it

Cygnus_Alpha

Looks great. Especially with Collies changes.

Just in case the POPLA assessor is wavering, you could also add that as the signage could not be read, no contract has been entered into - a point that the courts have consistently upheld and for which there is ample case law.