Tower Road, Newquay

Parkrage

What is the name of the site which hosts the images we place here? The RK has just rec'd a letter from Right Hassle which I wish to post up. Basically, it invites us to submit further evidence which they'll share with ParkingEye, so they can provide their comments. I'm wondering whether we need to submit evidence additional to that already sent (largely at the suggestion of Salmosalris) or whether we should just resubmit the same? A major basis of the Appeal was that PE have no landowner authority at Tower Road. They submitted a Witness Statement from the Secretary of Newquay Golf Club 'confirming that he is authorised by the landowner to make the statement that the operator is authorised by the landowner to pursue outstanding PCNs.
We have to respond to this within 7 days.

Ivor_Pecheque

Try "Photobucket."

It's full of adverts but seems to work well. Think you just copy and paste the image link (third one down) in the "insert image" thing above. Get rid of the first "http".

Redx

tinypic or photobucket

there are several threads on this topic today, so similar letters I would think

Coupon-mad

Parkrage wrote: »

What is the name of the site which hosts the images we place here? The RK has just rec'd a letter from Right Hassle which I wish to post up. Basically, it invites us to submit further evidence which they'll share with ParkingEye, so they can provide their comments. I'm wondering whether we need to submit evidence additional to that already sent (largely at the suggestion of Salmosalris) or whether we should just resubmit the same? A major basis of the Appeal was that PE have no landowner authority at Tower Road.

They submitted a Witness Statement from the Secretary of Newquay Golf Club 'confirming that he is authorised by the landowner to make the statement that the operator is authorised by the landowner to pursue outstanding PCNs.

We have to respond to this within 7 days.

We do not need to see it (seen one, seen them all) and cannot offer advice on individual threads in a few days on this forum.

That is not to say advice is not here already - it is, earlier today. Read the first one, rachieb77's thread. Draft a response to WH (depends on if you got an evidence pack) and do not drop the ball.

Umkomaas

That is not to say advice is not here already - it is, earlier today. Read the first one, rachieb77's thread. Draft a response to WH (depends on if you got an evidence pack) and do not drop the ball.

Also read the latest from Parking Prankster here:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/wright-hassall-begin-to-hear-stayed.html

Parkrage

Ah, that was it, photobucket. However, as commented below, I don't need to post it as it's generic.

salmosalaris

Who knows if WH wven have your original appeal and in the absence of further submissions are simply going to deny the appeal on gpeol ?

I would send a copy of the original appeal ( yours may need updating re Beavis , legitimate interest and simple financial consumer contracts)

E mail this to Wright Hassall

I refer you to my original appeal and wish to add the following.

1. There is a clear breach of the BPA code of practice in that the motorist is not made fully aware that ANPR cameras are used and what the data they capture is used for .
The motorist is completely unaware that ANPR timings are taken at arbitrary points on entering and leaving the car park and these timings form the basis of the alleged maximum permissible stay . It is impossible to agree to not staying beyond a certain time when the driver is unaware of that time , consequently there cannot be an acceptance of terms or a valid contract as presented by the operator by which the driver can be bound .
Recent POPLA rulings have found in favour of the appellant when this point is raised .

Coupon-mad

Parkrage wrote: »

As I approached I saw a sign by the road proclaiming 'Nearest Car Park to Fistral Beach' to the left, so parked in there. There were two parking machines near the entrance, which I read carefully as they also were of an unfamiliar type.

One had to key in one's Car Registration Number together with the length of time required, so I paid for 3 hours. A very reassuring sign placed over the Parking Meters clearly said words to the effect of, "Don't worry if you're longer than intended; you can pay the excess when you return". In the event, we got lost (couldn't recall which car park we were in), but eventually found it and paid the extra, which I think was for 1 hour. Anyway, it was still within 'limits'. I've now had letter from PE asking us to pay £100 (or £60 if prompt).

I had stayed (they say) for 4 hours 15 minutes, and I had paid for 4 hours. (3 hours + 1 hour). The 15 minutes was taken up by the time they photographed my car entering the car park , and subsequently leaving it.

They are trying to extract a PENALTY of £100!!!

Reiterate and quote the BPA mandatory grace periods x 2

Also I noticed some really useful wording yesterday, in one of the old POPLA Annual reports from 2015 where Henry Greenslade made it clear that a busy car park would take far longer as a 'reasonable' time to find a space than a small not busy car park. Quote his words about that, too and tell WH that a total of 15 minutes 'driving/non parking' (grace period) activity, including time at the start AND at the end plus TWICE using the P&D machine as intended, at a busy beach car park, is indisputably 'reasonable' under the POPLA Lead Adjudicator's clear directive in the Annual Report from the very year you made your appeal to POPLA. Given the BPA's grace period rules as well, this PCN was not properly issued under the circumstances.

salmosalaris

Also add this

2. The operator has failed to demonstrate that it has the authority to operate on site as required by the BPA code of practice which states at para 7.3 that the authorisation must set out:

a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

The enclosed witness statement is completely inadequate to demonstrate the above requisite authority is in place . It is additionally signed by somebody on behalf of a party that is not the landowner .There is no evidence that the operator has the authority of the landowner to issue parking charges, offer contracts for parking in their name and litigate in their own name .

Again POPLA has recently upheld appeals on this basis

Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Reiterate and quote the BPA mandatory grace periods x 2

Also I noticed some really useful wording yesterday, in one of the old POPLA Annual reports from 2015 where Henry Greenslade made it clear that a busy car park would take far longer as a 'reasonable' time to find a space than a small not busy car park. Quote his words about that, too and tell WH that a total of 15 minutes 'driving/non parking' (grace period) activity, including time at the start AND at the end plus TWICE using the P&D machine as intended, at a busy beach car park, is indisputably 'reasonable' under the POPLA Lead Adjudicator's clear directive in the Annual Report from the very year you made your appeal to POPLA. Given the BPA's grace period rules as well, this PCN was not properly issued under the circumstances.

See these threads for final things to include, where relevant:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5446138

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5445602

Show us your draft email in the morning.