Tower Road, Newquay

Parkrage

The letter I had from POPLA said that the scheduled date of the hearing will be on or soon after Sept 3rd. However, the evidence pack from PE arrived in my Inbox on Sept 3rd (while I was on holiday with no access to the internet) with a further document being sent on Sept 7th. I didn't arrive back from holiday until Sept 13th.Do you think this tardiness is something I should mention in my letter? i.e. I ma already be too late responding to it, and haven't yet had the opportunity to trawl through all 51 pages of it sufficiently carefully.
Also, should I include something about being suspicious of their Parking Meter photograph as the charges displayed don't relate to what I actually paid (as you noticed Salmosalaris)?

Parkrage

This is the letter I've formulated so far.

Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

In your original acknowledgement of my Appeal you stated that both yourselves and I would receive evidence from the operator (Parking Eye) before the scheduled date of the hearing, which would be considered on or soon after September 3rd.

In the event, an Evidence Pack from PE arrived in my Inbox’ on exactly that date, September 3rd, when I was abroad on holiday with no internet access.

Further evidence arrived in my Inbox on September 7th. I did not arrive back from holiday untl September 13th, and so have not had time to consider their evidence in detail. However, two ponts stand out.

Firstly, the amounts they acknowledge I paid (£2-60 and £2-00) do not correspond to the tariffs that are displayed in the photograph they have submitted. Hence I question that this photograph is from the Tower Road car park. Alternatively, it might be from a later date than I actually used the car park. Parking Eye need to confirm the location and date of this photograph.

[FONT=&quot]Secondly, the witness statement provided by Parking Eye is signed on behalf of Newquay Golf Club. This party is not the landowner and has provided no evidence to substantiate that they have the authority of the landowner (Which may or may not be the trustees of Newquay Golf Club... (the rest is exactly as Salmosalais suggested).
Does that look OK or ca you suggest any improvements? Due to the time factor, I guess I need to send it off pronto! Thanks in anticipation.:beer:[/FONT]

Parkrage

At the time of writing I have still not heard from POPLA, despite them having given me a date of 3rd September (the same date that the 51 page 'Evidence Pack' from PE arrived!!). This means that I've had time to actually read it. I'm wondering if I ought to respond further to this bit (see below) , or whether I've already said sufficient in my POPLA Appeal. It's the bit concerning Sir Timothy Lloyd's comments:

My letter

I would refer the POPLA adjudicator to the persuasive remarks of Sir Timothy Lloyd in the judgment handed down by the Court of Appeal in the case of Parking Eye v Barry Beavis.

In that situation the penalty charge was justified on the basis that it was necessary to deter motorists staying longer than allowed to facilitate the turnover of free parking places.

It was determined that the contract was not a financial one in that there was no economic transaction between ParkingEye and the motorist.

This is in stark contrast to the present case where there was an economic transaction between ParkingEye and the motorist, and no restriction on the time of stay was made provided payment was made.


Parking Eye

“In agreement with Moore-Bick LJ, and distinguishing the contract formed between ParkingEye and the motorist from a commercial contract, Sir Timothy Lloyd states at paragraph 47 that, “[…] the principles underlying the doctrine of penalty ought not to strike down a provision of this kind, in relation to a contract such as we are concerned with, merely on the basis that the contractual provision is disincentive, or deterrent, against overstaying”.
In terms of the amount of the Parking Charge, both the first instance and Court of Appeal Judgments, along with the BPA Code of Conduct at paragraph 19.5, support the level of Parking Charge issued by ParkingEye. At paragraph 7.13(i) HHJ Moloney QC considers the charges issued by local authorities, and
notes that these charge amounts can be up to £105. Please note that as these are fines, backed by statutory authority, the costs of enforcing these charges are considerably lower than those encountered by a private parking company”.


I have to confess that I just don't understand the legal jargonese PE are saying. Should I respond to this (and if so, what should I write?

Parkrage

In another thread, ukmaas has commented on his brain being 'turned to mush' trying to read the 'wall of words' people write in for theirPOPLA Appeals.
That's excactly how I feel about the 51 page 'Evidence Pack' that PE send out to POPLA. I find it difficult to read on screen, and I'm certainly not going to print it out. As I said above, I don't understand the 'legalese' in order to argue every point. I'm relying on the Witness Statemet from the manager of Newquay Golf Club as not being adequate as they're not the landowner
Wondered if anyone had found some foolproof excuse for forcing PE to send out hard copy of their 'Evidence Pack'? If we all did this, then this would make big inroads to PEs 'secret budget' of £30/case, I've seen mentioned elsewhere on this site; and maybe they'd stop doing it.

Umkomaas

@Parkrage - I'm on my mobile phone at the moment so not easy to trawl back through your thread to check, but have I linked you to some good rebuttals of evidence packs?

If not, I'll try from here, but if it proves too tricky, it will be later this evening.

Castle

Parkrage wrote: »

Wondered if anyone had found some foolproof excuse for forcing PE to send out hard copy of their 'Evidence Pack'? If we all did this, then this would make big inroads to PEs 'secret budget' of £30/case, I've seen mentioned elsewhere on this site; and maybe they'd stop doing it.

Don't give out your email address; send everthing by post!

Umkomaas

Umkomaas wrote: »

@Parkrage - I'm on my mobile phone at the moment so not easy to trawl back through your thread to check, but have I linked you to some good rebuttals of evidence packs?

If not, I'll try from here, but if it proves too tricky, it will be later this evening.

HOW TO REBUT A PPC's EVIDENCE PACK

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

And a further one.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/13uLICVZ13MeT7Q_4qzJUIyAn-jtVJUIVeCaaINpI2U8/mobilebasic

Parkrage

I just tried to track my appeal ast POPLA, as the hearing was due on 3rd September, but I've heard nothing. I had this response:

"Sorry, the information you have provided is invalid. Please check the details you have entered"

I had to enter the 10 digit POPLA Verification Code and a password. I had entered what I thought might be my Password. I then clicked 'Forgotten Password' but got the same message.

Any ideas? Could it be because POPLA Appeals process has changed?

Parkrage

"Don't give out your email address; send everthing by post!"

Bit late for that advice. They must've got my email address from POPLA, to whom I appealed online - as they advise.

Parkrage

I eventually emailed POPLA to find out why I couldn't 'track' my Appeal. They didn't respond to that specific question, but said that the reason for the delay was that my Appeal had been 'parked' pending the result of Beavis vs Parking Eye. Hence, my submission that this case was irrelevant to mine because Beavis overstayed in a 'Free' car park whereas I overstayed (and paid) in a paid car park obviously hasn't carried any weight.