Parking Eye, Sankt Augustin Retail Park, Grantham

g0wfv

Yup, another Parking Eye one!

Alleged Parking Event: 23/7/15 12:28:04 - 15:34:38
PCN Sent: 29/7/15
Initial appeal to PE: 30/7/15 via web, followed up by letter after no response on 7/8/15
Appeal rejection: 13/8/15 (with POPLA code)
POPLA appeal submitted: 27/9/15 after delay on transfer of service to OSL
Evidence received by POPLA: 16/10/15
Appeal on pause pending receipt of evidence pack by RK: 22/10/15
Evidence received by RK: 22/10/15 (hours after escalating lack of receipt with POPLA)
Rebuttal submitted: 24/10/15
Adjudication received: 2/11/15 - SUCCESSFUL

Here's my initial stab at a POPLA appeal including the main argument that the system has mucked up 2 separate parking events by 2 different driver of the same vehicle on the same day (for which I have no proof but am hoping Parking Eye will be so kind as to check their records), followed by the standard other arguments.

I remember reading some supplemental advice re GPEOL and Beavis (ie adjournment pending the outcome) but can't find the wording to use - has anyone got something suitable to tag on to the GPEOL para?

Your comments please ...

[Text removed by OP]

Redx

gpeol should be last , followed by the Beavis paragraph, which is in blue in the newbies sticky thread that we ask everybody to read

Fruitcake

Parking lie will not check their records. This is (in my opinion) a well known and deliberate scam called double dipping. PE will tell you they have no record of your car leaving and returning between the first and last photo's.


However, as long as you state the vehicle left and returned in your PoPLA appeal, PE have to prove it didn't happen. They can't so you will win.


In the unlikely event that this got to court, witness statements from the two drivers would be upheld by a judge as again, parking lie would be unable to prove this to the contrary.

g0wfv

Thanks guys.

Thanks Redx - Found the text - My apoligies, I must have read the newbies thread numerous times, over numerous days, just didn't see the relevant text this time round until after I'd posted. I've now updated the appeal letter to include it and your suggestion of putting GPEOL last (or will in a tick!)

Fruitcake - I didn't know it had a name, or indeed was a practice! Every day's a school day!

Northlakes

Just check if they have a no return in 2 hour policy. You don't want to admit to anything inadvertently.
Is the vehicle not supposed to return or the driver?

g0wfv

I'll check the "no return within" but as you say I'm not sure whether this applies to the vehicle or another driver (who may not be aware of where another driver parks!)

Anybody have any ideas?

Northlakes

The car can't read the signs so I suppose the driver can't return but the driver didn't return.
If this didn't cause so much of problem it would be quite amusing.
A local campaigner has to address a planning meeting over PE signage and this story could be an amusing dig at the stupidity of PE and their made-up rules.

Northlakes

It is also worth checking with S Kesteven planning if PE have ANPR and signage planning consent.

g0wfv

Not sure if I read somewhere that planning consent turned out to be a red herring in that the council didn't have to issue consent under certain circumstances?

Still worth chasing up, I agree. An FOI request to SKDC ought to do it, yes? (Info now requested under FOI)

Herzlos

g0wfv wrote: »

I'll check the "no return within" but as you say I'm not sure whether this applies to the vehicle or another driver (who may not be aware of where another driver parks!)

Anybody have any ideas?

The contract is with the driver, so another driver in the same vehicle is technically allowed. Maybe if the contract says "no vehicle return within 2 hours" it would be different. I'm not sure how the council deal with it.

It also brings up another question again; is the contract with the driver who enters the car park, or the one who leaves? If it's the former, they've no control over when the latter leaves, and if it's the latter, they didn't agree to the conditions in the first place.

The_Deep

One for PE to let go I think.