Appealed to PE, Rejection of Invalid invoice & NO POPLA CODE

Pmanesh

The signage evidence shown is from the correct car park so I can't, as the newbies thread says, talk about signage being wrong. any other thoughts?

Grimble

How do you know it is correct? They not you have to prove it conforms.

Pmanesh

How should I word it in regards to wanting proof of signage being displayed on the day?

Pmanesh

thoughts? :

Dear Sir/Madam,

After 35 days, I have been emailed Parking Eye’s Evidence pack for POPLA code: 6061485106.

The charge is unconscionable and extravagant and unrelated to local Penalty Charge levels in this area. It is believed that the Supreme Court’s decision in ParkingEye v Beavis will have an impact on the outcome of this POPLA appeal. If the operator does not cancel this charge and/or if there is no other ground upon which the appeal can be determined, I ask that my appeal is adjourned pending the Beavis case.
There is no evidence showing the signage in the images were displayed on the day in store. Upon entering in the carpark, the driver is expected to enter a tight gap, especially when other vehicles are trying to exit, and enter the blue badge holders parking spaces to the right, where there is no present signage either.

Kind Regards,

ampersand

'Parkinglie must provide strict contemporaneous proof that fully compliant signage..........' blahblah, plenty of cut and paste examples within this forum.

#48, remove car details.

Also, is this exactly what came in that parking lie reply?
'States ParkingEye have propriety interest in the land.'

Usually, we challenge failure to have any proprietary interest in the land i.e..
'States ParkingEye have no proprietary interest in the land.'
[See your own #20]

So, have parkinglie misquoted you?

Pmanesh

ampersand wrote: »

'Parkinglie must provide strict contemporaneous proof that fully compliant signage..........' blahblah, plenty of cut and paste examples within this forum.

#48, remove car details.

Also, is this exactly what came in that parking lie reply?
'States ParkingEye have propriety interest in the land.'

Usually, we challenge failure to have any proprietary interest in the land i.e..
'States ParkingEye have no proprietary interest in the land.'
[See your own #20]

So, have parkinglie misquoted you?

yes i copy pasted from the letter.
I hadn't noticed that, thanks, ill include this.

Pmanesh

ampersand wrote: »

'Parkinglie must provide strict contemporaneous proof that fully compliant signage..........' blahblah, plenty of cut and paste examples within this forum.

I am unable to find other examples of peoples responses to evidence packs anywhere on this forum. What search term should I be using?

I can only see evidence pack responses asking for proof of the contract with the land owner, should i be including this also?

thanks

Herzlos

try "rebuttal"

Pmanesh

Herzlos wrote: »

try "rebuttal"

Thank you,
came across some decent examples.
I need to send the letter today as it was sat in my junk for 5 days and I've spent 2 days working on a response.

Is the below an improvement?

Dear Sir/Madam,

After 35 days, I have been emailed Parking Eye’s Evidence pack for POPLA code: 6061485106.

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 as submitted on 25/06/2015.

Page 4 of Parking eyes evidence pack quotes that i sent a letter stating:
"States ParkingEye have propriety interest in the land.”
This goes against my actual quote in my POPLA appeal:
“...this Operator has no proprietary interest in the land"


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. ParkingEye 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 ParkingEye 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.

There seems to be no valid copy of an unredacted contract included between ParkingEye 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 ParkingEye claim is an unredacted contract is dated after the alleged breach of contract took place.


ParkingEye must provide strict contemporaneous proof that fully compliant signage was displayed. There are no dates to show when these photographs were taken, and whether or not they are still being displayed.

This evidence merely shows that ParkingEye's signage does not comply with the BPA code of practice. The signage is clearly too high to be seen by the driver of a vehicle when parking in the space. It is also angled so as to make reading it even harder, and with the small fonts used it would not be possible to read the signage while in a moving car. Upon entering in the carpark, the driver is expected to enter a tight gap, especially when other vehicles are trying to exit, and enter the blue badge holders parking spaces to the right, where there is no present signage either as seen in the ariel view image of the parking site.

The charge is unconscionable and extravagant and unrelated to local Penalty Charge levels in this area. It is believed that the Supreme Court’s decision in ParkingEye v Beavis will have an impact on the outcome of this POPLA appeal. If the operator does not cancel this charge and/or if there is no other ground upon which the appeal can be determined, I ask that my appeal is adjourned pending the Beavis case.

Kind Regards,

ampersand

pmanesh - have a look at the POPLA Decisions Thread. #1791 and 1792.

I'm seeing some good, relevant para.s there in various Assessors' reasoning in allowing each Appeal. Nothing better than following their thinking :-)