Tower Road, Newquay

Redx

more or less in line with what the Supreme Court judges were told last thursday, so well worth including

umkomaas makes some very good but critical points in his reply , so try to remove what doesnt apply, remove stuff that may have been ok prior to the Supreme Court appeal but isnt now , possibly adding or changing it to what happened last week instead of what happened last february

Parkrage

“ 1. No breach of contract
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle detailed above. There was no breach of contract. I can confirm that the driver fully paid for the period of parking in accordance with the signage. My husband has written a witness statement (attached) in support of this fact.
I can only assume that either the machinery is faulty or possibly an incorrect VRN was entered, but in either case there was no loss caused to ParkingEye, let alone for them to justify a claim for £100!

”
Driver possibly identified??

I will rewrite it to say, "As the partner of the RK I can confirm that two parking tickets were bought, one to cover 3 hours, and the second to cover 1 hour, in accordance with the signage immediately above the meters which said (words to the effect), 'Don't worry if you stay longer than anticipated. You cann purchase the extra time when you return'. (I'll check the exact wording on the photo kindly provided by Percheque, above before posting).

Umkomaas

I will rewrite it to say, "[STRIKE]As the partner of the RK I can confirm[/STRIKE] It is confirmed that two parking tickets were bought, one to cover 3 hours, and the second to cover 1 hour, in accordance with the signage immediately above the meters which said (words to the effect), 'Don't worry if you stay longer than anticipated. You cann purchase the extra time when you return'. (I'll check the exact wording on the photo kindly provided by Percheque, above before posting).

The RK should be writing to POPLA (even if you do it), so you should take reference to you out of this.

Guys_Dad

I would remove the Beavis quotes as well. They may be accurate but still got a victory for PE and in any case the Supreme Court are considering their views.

You do not wish to appear a barrack room lawyer.

And it is still too long. Just look at the last couple of pages of the POPLAR DECISIONS sticky to see what is winning.

Redx

ie:-

I am the RK of the vehicle and I am providing a witness statement from an occupant of the vehicle on the day in question

so as umkomaas stated, its the RK writing the popla appeal, yet you are falling into the first person trap of writing it and mixing up all the parties involved

the Beavis case was in the Supreme Court 6 days ago so the scenarios have shifted since previous popla appeals, so any references should be removed or take this into account

Parkrage

"The Beavis case was in the Supreme Court 6 days ago so the scenarios have shifted since previous popla appeals, so any references should be removed or take this into account Newbies !!"




Well, as Tommy1080 successfully argued, and is also relevant in my case, the PE vs Beavis case is irrelevant because we did make payment; Beavis didn't. Hence in our cases, the previous Court of Appeal would have considered the charge to be unenforceable penalties.



If the Beavis case is irrelevant (because he (Beavis) didn't make a payment at all), I don't understand how much that has transpired from the Supreme Court hearings (a decision from which won't come out until October) impacts on my situation.


I've included the blue paragraph really because of the strong advice on this forum to do so.

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

Parkrage

OK, in accordance with advices above, I've rewitten para 1 to say:

1. No breach of contract
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle detailed above. There was no breach of contract.
It is confirmed that two parking tickets were bought, one to cover 3 hours, and the second to cover 1 hour, in accordance with the signage immediately above the meters which said, 'Don't worry if you have overstayed, in order to avoid a charge please purchase the additional time required before leaving’.

An occupant of the car has provided a witness statement (enclosed) in support of this fact.
I can only assume that either the machinery was faulty or possibly an incorrect VRN was entered, but in either case there was no loss caused to ParkingEye, let alone for them to justify a claim for £100!

Guys_Dad

I helped another motorist with a similar point. PE can check their records at the approximate time you purchased the ticket and see if they have a similar but transposed number entered. They have already said in open court and supplied a letter to that effect that they do that as part of the checking. Suggest that you remind them of that and ask them to double check again.

Parkrage

"".

I did do that GD, in my original 'challenge' letter to PE, but they didn't respond to it.

Parkrage

... but I'll include a sentence to that effect in my POPLA Appeal :-)