POPLA first attempt

System

Cut and pasted first draft. Helpful comments please- am I OK to send POPLA my photos too?

Response to Parking Eye Case CCCC
POPLA code XXXXXX
Dear POPLA Team,
Following the sharing by Parking Eye Ltd of their case, I wish to make the following rebuttals.
Parking Eye’s first assertion concerns Rules and Conditions, which they claim are “clearly stated “on the signs around the XXXXXXXX Car Park. The Site plan may mark proposed locations of signs but of the 15 marked locations, four certainly do not exist ( I enclose the plan provided by Parking Eye, indicating the absent signs, from a site visit on 15.01.2016).
For the driver entering the car park, coming off a busy road, the signage is not conspicuous and clear at the car park entrance. I enclose my photograph taken on January 15th of the car park entrance.
The signs displaying any detailed information about parking rules and conditions are in such small print that even standing in front of the signs, they cannot be read. I offer my photographs in support of my rebuttal.
Parking Eye’s second point claims authority to act for the Land owners, Asda, however they fail to provide this contract or a witness statement supporting it, I therefore dispute their authority to make any contract with any motorist.
Whilst Parking Eye are relying upon the Judgement against Beavis (2015) UKSC 67, I believe that each situation should be decided on its own merits and this charge issued by Parking Eye against me is not the same as their claim against Beavis. My friends with more legal knowledge than I have offered legal arguements against a blanket application of Beavis judgement against all motorists, that their charges are “fair, reasonable and legally enforceable”.
For these reasons I appeal against Parking Eye’s charges
My Name
Today’s date
Attached my photographs.

ampersand

Hello FM - quick tweak suggestions:
' My photographs clearly prove this part of my rebuttal.'
#
'Parking Eye’s second point claims they have authority to act for the Land owners, Asda.[are they the LAND OWNERS? I doubt it.]
As they fail to provide either a valid contemporaneous contract, or any fully compliant, unredacted witness statement supporting it, they have no authority to make any contract in their own name with any motorist.'
#
Right...I have a few extra moments and now see much more needs doing, but don't be disheartened. We all began this way.

POPLA code XXXXXX

Response to Parking Eye Invoice CCCC

Vehicle reg. no xxx

fao: POPLA AdjudicaitonTeam.
Attachments:[your pics]

In response to ParkingEye's COLOR=Blue]note, they write it like this, without a space[/COLOR submissions concerning an alleged parking infringement, please note contemporaneous photographic evidence and the full rebuttal which follows.

ParkingEye’s first assertion concerns Rules and Conditions.

They claim these are “clearly stated“ on signs around the XXXXXXXX Car Park. The Site plan may mark proposed locations for signs, but of fifteen marked, four certainly do not exist.

The Registered Keeper has replicated the journey leading to the alleged parking event. On their plan, ParkingEye indicate signs which simply do not exist. They are completely absent, despite their statement to the contrary.

No driver coming off a busy road and entering the car park can see any signage which is conspicuous and clear, much less immediately, as is required by[annotate and cite the bpa bumf on this] at any car park entrance.

The assessor is invited to note the Registered Keeper's pic. 1, taken at the car park entrance. A lengthy search eventually revealed other signs, again non-compliant.
Any allegedly 'detailed information' about 'parking rules and conditions' is displayed in such small print, again non-compliant, that even standing in front of the signs, they cannot be read, let alone absorbed. [cite print requirement clauses]

Pic.2 clearly shows evidence of this further contravention by ParkingEye.

ParkingEye claims authority to act for the landowners[see above: I doubt they are], Asda, however they fail to provide any contract or any valid, contemporaneous witness statement supporting this assertion.

I put ParkingEye to strict proof of their authority to make any contract with any motorist on [this site] in their own right.

Parking Eye now seek to rely upon the judgment against Beavis (2015) UKSC 67, but this has no relevance to this alleged parking event and differs thus:.
[Now list why - no financial interaction with PE etc.[STRIKE]]0I believe that each situation should be decided on its own merits and this charge issued by Parking Eye against me[/STRIKE]
This alleged 'parking event' is not the same as ParkingEye's claim against Beavis.[STRIKE] My friends with more legal knowledge than I have offered legal arguments against a blanket application of[/STRIKE]
The Beavis judgment is not a blanket, fail-safe condemnation of all motorists invoiced by ParkingEye. It is misleading for them to attempt this.

This charge is not one which is “fair, reasonable and legally enforceable”.
[STRIKE]For these reasons I appeal against Parking Eye’s charges[/STRIKE]
fm- where are the rest of the para's as structured in the headings for a full POPLA appeal? Why are you not using that logical lay-out?]
[STRIKE]Name[/STRIKE]

Thankyou for your attention.
Yours faithfully
fm.
#
More to do yet and I can't go full-tilt at this now.
When it is signed off here:-), ensure you keep a printable, legible screenshot copy, if you are emailing it in.
c-m knows I prefer post in which case a 1st-class stamped letter is deemed delivered within 48 hrs. Obtain and retain a free cert. of Posting from any PO. [& lives in an area of dire and worsening connectivity]
Well done for getting good pic. evidence. Use the 3rd person, formal tone when writing. Any digression can be an emphatic stand-alone reiteration or similar, but rare]

Make strong positive statements.

I'll try and look again by Friday. Others will be along soon, but work on those other para's.

System

http://tinypic.com/usermedia.php?uo=bbi8MiGk22MkhVgMtg%2FSEIh4l5k2TGxc

System

The Tiny and Photoshack routes are not working for me. Here is my simple attempt at rebuttal.

Response to Parking Eye Case CCCC
POPLA code XXXXXX
Dear POPLA Team,
Following the sharing by Parking Eye Ltd of their case, I wish to make the following rebuttals.
Parking Eye’s first assertion concerns Rules and Conditions, which they claim are “clearly stated “on the signs around the XXXXXXXX Car Park. The Site plan may mark proposed locations of signs but of the 15 marked locations, four certainly do not exist ( I enclose the plan provided by Parking Eye, indicating the absent signs, from a site visit on 15.01.2016).
For the driver entering the car park, coming off a busy road, the signage is not conspicuous and clear at the car park entrance. I enclose my photograph taken on January 15th of the car park entrance.
The signs displaying any detailed information about parking rules and conditions are in such small print that even standing in front of the signs, they cannot be read. I offer my photographs in support of my rebuttal.
Parking Eye’s second point claims authority to act for the Land owners (Asda), however they fail to provide this contract or a witness statement supporting it, I therefore dispute their authority to make any contract with any motorist.
Whilst Parking Eye are relying upon the Judgement against Beavis (2015) UKSC 67, I believe that each situation should be decided on its own merits and this charge issued by Parking Eye against me is not the same as their claim against Beavis. My friends with more legal knowledge than I have offered legal arguements against a blanket application of Beavis judgement against all motorists, that their charges are “fair, reasonable and legally enforceable”.
For these reasons I appeal against Parking Eye’s charges
My Name
Today’s date
Attached my photographs.

System

Reply to Ampersand's questions-
1,PE did not say that Asda owned the land... I did detective work and found that out... I did write to Asda asking for them to call off PE, they declined, but did not deny they owned the land- there is no Asda on this retail park but on the other side of dual carriageway. I'll remove reference to the landowner then, shall I?
2. you ask Why no logical para structure? Answer: I have already sent in my 11 page appeal to POPLA. I submitted it as an "other" appeal rather than filling in the boxes. -I was in a panic as I hadn't had any suggestions and my time for submitting appeal was almost up . Are you suggesting I should structure my rebuttal under their headings? I kept a copy of my 11 pages, but not their pro-forma appeals papers. I thought the rebuttal was just to counter, or comment on the two pages of A4 that PE sent to me (along with all letters already sent to me, pretty photos of generic parking signs and the plan of proposed siting of signs).

System

I had a suggestion from someone via Pepipoo site, that I should suggest how my case is not like Beavis. At this time Pepipo site is not accessible so I cannot address the query there. Are there factors to argue or should I just stick with the signage and authority arguments? My letter of rebuttal to Popla keeps going astray, so I'm re-posting it here. Help please

POPLA code XXXXXX
Response to Parking Eye Case CCCC
Vehicle reg. no xxx
fao: POPLA AdjudicaitonTeam.
Attachments:[my pics]

In response to ParkingEye's submissions concerning an alleged parking infringement, please note contemporaneous photographic evidence and the full rebuttal which follows
Parking Eye’s first assertion concerns Rules and Conditions.
They claim these are “clearly stated“ on signs around the XXXXXXXX Car Park. The Site plan may mark proposed locations for signs, but of fifteen marked, four certainly do not exist.

The Registered Keeper has replicated the journey leading to the alleged parking event. On their plan, ParkingEye indicate signs which simply do not exist. They are completely absent, despite their statement to the contrary.
No driver coming off a busy road and entering the car park can see any signage which is conspicuous and clear, much less immediately, as is required by BPA Code of practice (18.2 Entrance signs)

The assessor is invited to note the Registered Keeper's pic. 1, taken at the car park entrance. A lengthy search eventually revealed other signs, again non-compliant. Pic.2 demonstrates how from the parked car there is no legible signage.
Any allegedly 'detailed information' about 'parking rules and conditions' is displayed in such small print, again non-compliant, that even standing in front of the signs, they cannot be read, let alone absorbed. [BPA Code of Practice 18.3 Specific parking-terms signage]

Pic3. clearly shows evidence of this further contravention by ParkingEye.

Parking Eye’s second point claims authority to act for the Land owners, however they fail to provide this contract or a witness statement supporting it, I therefore dispute their authority to make any contract with any motorist
I put ParkingEye to strict proof of their authority to make any contract with any motorist on [the site] in their own right.
Parking Eye now seek to rely upon the judgment against Beavis (2015) UKSC 67, but this has no relevance to this alleged parking.
This alleged 'parking event' is not the same as ParkingEye's claim against Beavis.
The Beavis judgment is not a blanket, fail-safe condemnation of all motorists invoiced by ParkingEye. It is misleading for them to attempt this.
This charge is not one which is “fair, reasonable and legally enforceable”.
Thankyou for your attention.
Yours faithfully

Coupon-mad

First question as it's not been asked on this thread. What happened when you submitted a complaint about this onerous threat demanding money?

Retail Park:

http://www.gallagherretailpark.co.uk/contact

Is that the right place? Complain in person to Next, M&S and other store Managers, whether you bought something that day OR NOT (you are allowed to browse). Often the larger retailers will get these quashed so go in and ask, nothing to lose. Take the PCN with you and any receipts from ANY days which show you and your family to be genuine regular customers.

In the complaint to the Retail Park online, say you are a local family who often used to shop here but now feel angry and attacked by Parking Eye and this has wasted weeks of your time to try to research & defend/appeal since before Christmas. Say you feel that this is extortion and that the whole family is absolutely astonished the retail park are allowing a notoriously litigious company to pursue customers like this with a nasty hidden 'charge' for shopping.

Anyway, re your rebuttal.

You are absolutely on the money to pick out things such as that 4 boards shown in the site map are not actually there at all. Your photos of the car park are good, shows a lack of signs in view which contradicts the warped picture PE always try to paint.

You should win, because they haven't included the landowner contract.

You've spotted that too but I would change your wording because it's too late for PE to address it so you don't want to be offering them time to produce the proof. Instead, I would say:

Parking Eye’s second point claims authority to act for the Land owners, however they failed to provide this contract or a witness statement supporting it. Therefore they have failed to show landowner authority at all - Fairlie v Fenton not being the silver bullet they are trying to make out. As this was one of my main POPLA appeal points then a failure by the operator to show authority means their case is fatally flawed.

Parking Eye now seek to rely upon the judgment against Beavis (2015) UKSC 67, but this has no relevance to this alleged parking event. This alleged 'parking event' is not the same as ParkingEye's claim against Beavis and in my appeal I pointed out that the Supreme Court had tweeted that the decision related to that particular car park with those particular signs. This is not the same car park and I have shown photos of the lack of signs visible and pointed out that the site map is incorrect and highly misleading.

The Beavis judgment is not a blanket, fail-safe condemnation of all motorists invoiced by ParkingEye. It is misleading for them to attempt this.
This charge is not one which is “fair, reasonable and legally enforceable” and there was no contract agreed, no obvious and prominent signs, unlike in the Beavis case.
Thankyou for your attention.

4consumerrights

FreyasmumSOS wrote: »

Parking Eye’s first assertion concerns Rules and Conditions.
They claim these are “clearly stated“ on signs around the XXXXXXXX Car Park. The Site plan may mark proposed locations for signs, but of fifteen marked, four certainly do not exist.
fully

The evidence pack you supplied links to mentions 26 signs and a 3 hour max time limit.

There is a discrepancy there with the figures.

Emphasise any discrepancies with signage and link to breach of relevant code of practice.

No proof of landowner contract - add breach of section 7 of code of practice in addition to Fairlie v Fenton comments

I note they mention a grace period - therefore have you addressed that. I don't know the alleged overstay in your case?

Your appeal appears to have been copied or provided with facts which contradict your case and other points missed.

4consumerrights

Coupon-mad wrote: »

First question as it's not been asked on this thread. What happened when you submitted a complaint about this onerous threat demanding money?

Retail Park:

http://www.gallagherretailpark.co.uk/contact

Is that the right place? By the way if you are in Cheltenham, get your friends & family to BOYCOTT the Riverside Retail Park because that's the Beavis car park which deserves to lose business over the Beavis case.

Beavis is Riverside Chelmsford ....... not Cheltenham ! No doubt a typographical oversight cm :-)

Coupon-mad

4consumerrights wrote: »

Beavis is Riverside Chelmsford ....... not Cheltenham ! No doubt a typographical oversight cm :-)

True. Classy of you. Some of us do this for free you know and are here to help the posters, not to score points or advertise.

Have edited it to assist the OP but not for you.



P.S. SOMEONE would really like my postings here and on pepipoo suspended, apparently.