Aldi car park popla stage

matthewmaudsley

Hey guys I'm not in receipt of the evidence pack parking eye have given to myself and popla. My main arguments were the signage and authority to issue them. They have given a lot of crap that I will be refuting. But they gave a witness statement that is on Aldi headed paper that says on behalf of Aldi I confirm that ... And basically they am have authority. To me it looks dodgy. Her name is Rachel organ and her job title is 'parking management department' and then it says 'for and on behalf of Aldi'
I get the feeling this person works for parking eye to be honest. Do the parking company need to reply with their contract or what they have done will be enough? I will obviously refute and suggest the job title and what it says below sounds like an employee of parking eye. Thanks

Redx

I am sure that she works for aldi, a well known name over the last few years

just sort out your popla appeal according to the latest examples linked in the NEWBIES sticky thread

if this is an evidence pack from PE, then refutre every point that you can, using recent posts on here that contain the rebuttals

see post #32 here

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5322681

pappa_golf

permission to issue tickets , but what about going as far as court?




there is a lack of PE/Aldi court cases being reported , and some have hinted that PE have been told not to proceed to court , and they then farm the begging letters off to the likes of DR+

Redx

always rebut witness statements on the "going to court" issues, because they may not have permission to pursue throuigh the courts, just to issue tickets

popla like to see landowner contracts, not witness statements

Coupon-mad

Say something like:

**********************

ParkingEye template 'witness statements' in general are unacceptable as evidence, whether or not they are ostensibly signed by Rachel Organ or any other Aldi or ParkingEye employee.

Rachel Organ may or may not be an Aldi employee (the statement leaves that vague) but is reasonably believed she may be retained/paid, directly or indirectly, by ParkingEye. She signs ostensibly ‘for’ Aldi in a so-called 'parking management department' but no Supermarket needs such a team and would have no reason to pay staff to handle issues for and caused by ParkingEye.

Not only is Ms Organ's signature basically considered to be as worthless as a ParkingEye signature would be on such a statement, but there have been numerous occasions in 2015 where POPLA appeals about Aldi have raised doubt that the squiggle of her signature (which changes every time into a differently shaped 'B') is even the signature of that person at all.

This is not even a 'witness statement' that could pass any evidential scrutiny because it could relate to any parking event at this site on this date. These ParkingEye pre-prepared template statements fail to mention anything about the car, the time, the breach alleged, the level of 'parking charge' authorised nor what these charges can/cannot be levied for and provide no information about grace periods or exemption clauses for Aldi customers.

It is a fact that Parking Eye have lost hundreds of POPLA appeals in 2013-2015 where the issue of no landowner authority has been raised by an appellant, yet they have merely offered weak ‘witness’ statements or a heavily redacted unreadable contract, or very often nothing at all, merely relying on a narrow misinterpretation of the case of Fairlie v Fenton (dismissed by POPLA every single time).


**********************


Is the driver being accused of overstay, or the heinous crime of not putting the VRN into a secret, hidden in the corner keypad? The latter (keypad not known about) can be argued to be not part of any agreed contract at the point of parking, as it comes too late instore and is not prominently communicated outside. The driver was unaware of that term and unaware of the £70 charge because neither was adequately drawn to his attention.

If overstay, you can argue that after research, you have discovered that it is in the public domain that the contract and user manual with Aldi contains an agreement that PCNs are to be cancelled if a customer can produce a receipt above a secret floor limit of £30. Not only have PE hidden that clause, by not producing the contract/user manual as evidence, but they hide it completely from Aldi customers which is a misleading omission under the CPUTRs and renders the charge unenforceable.

Have you noticed that most Aldi signs do not mention the £70? USE THAT! Have a look at the photo evidence of the signs, over half of Aldi signs do not tell a driver specifically about the £70 charge.

trisontana

Correct me if I am wrong , but I don't believe that any Aldi/PE tickets have ever gone to court.

pappa_golf

trisontana wrote: »

Correct me if I am wrong , but I don't believe that any Aldi/PE tickets have ever gone to court.

that was my thought as well , we keep seeing the odd one crop up with the likes of DR+ chasing , if they could go to court , why hire DR+

Coupon-mad

trisontana wrote: »

Correct me if I am wrong , but I don't believe that any Aldi/PE tickets have ever gone to court.

I think you are right but the OP may as well win at POPLA to remove the worry!

pappa_golf

agreed ,,,,,,,,,,,


even Freddie agrees with me:rotfl:

matthewmaudsley

Thank you guys,
This will help me. I have noticed that Rachel Organ woman's signature is always different. Seems to be fishy. And what is even more fishy in the witness statement is just below her signature (supposedly hers) there is a line that looks like it is two documents put together. You are only allowed 2000 characters in the evidence comments so I am going to have to condense all this down i am afraid. I have a lot to say on it all though!

Umkomaas

matthewmaudsley wrote: »

Thank you guys,
This will help me. I have noticed that Rachel Organ woman's signature is always different. Seems to be fishy. And what is even more fishy in the witness statement is just below her signature (supposedly hers) there is a line that looks like it is two documents put together. You are only allowed 2000 characters in the evidence comments so I am going to have to condense all this down i am afraid. I have a lot to say on it all though!

Don't use the website dialogue box to put your full appeal into, just put the main appeal point headers followed by 'See attached file', then attach a PDF file, or Word file (including any scans built into the file) and use the 'Attach' button.