ParkingEye charge - Pokemon hunting

mamamia11

I have received the evidence package from ParkingEye, and also an email from POPLA inviting me to submit comments (by Tuesday). Should I do this?

In case I should, I've drafted the following and would be grateful if someone could check through it for me:

I have received the evidence folder from ParkingEye, and would like to make the following comments which relate to my numbered appeal points.

1. Parking at Southampton Town Quay is subject to statutory control
I would refer the Assessor to the very recent POPLA case ref. 6062356150 (29/09/2016) concerning Southampton Town Quay, where the Assessor (Steve Macallan) found in favour of the appellant, stating that ‘relevant land’ is “any land other than: ‘land on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control (PoFA 2012, para. 3(1)(c))”, and that “this park is indeed on land under statutory control and cannot be considered ‘relevant land’ for the purposes of PoFA 2012”.

2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge / Parking Charge Notice is not compliant with PoFA 2012
The Parking Charge Notice (Notice to Keeper) provided by ParkingEye shows clearly that it does not comply with PoFA Para 9(2)(f), and therefore the operator is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge and so continues to hold the driver responsible. No evidence is offered to show that the keeper is in fact the driver.

3. ParkingEye’s Notice to Keeper failed to meet the mandatory delivery timescales laid down by PoFA
The Parking Charge Notice confirms the dates discussed in this appeal point.

4. ParkingEye has no standing or authority to form contracts with drivers in this particular car park, nor to pursue charges
The signed witness statement does not comply with section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice.

5. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself
For the purpose of this appeal the important sign is numbered 4a. These are the only signs which mention the Parking Charge, details of the Parking Tariffs, and full terms and conditions.

The AB Ports Signage Plans, dated 03/11/2015, are not accurate. The plan entitled ‘Site Overview – Entrance & Exit’ shows sign 4a in three places. The first is a little way in on the left, where a driver would be likely to see it on their way to the main car park – this sign does not exist. The second is a little further in on the right, out of the line of sight of the driver, and I would refer the Assessor to my photograph, taken from a car driving past at night. The third, on the right at the bend before the start of the main car park, again does not exist. Another non-existent 4a sign is shown on the plan of the Main Car Park, on the left just before the start of the Main Car Park. All other 4a signs on this plan are situated in the left hand part of the car park, none in the right.

6. Driving round a car park is not parking
Under the heading ‘Further Information’, ParkingEye refer to the terms and conditions on the signage as stating that “By parking, waiting or otherwise remaining within this private car park, you agree to comply with these terms and conditions and are authorised to park, only if you meet these terms and conditions” and “If you fail to comply, you accept liability to pay the fee for unauthorised parking”. The car was never parked.


I do have one further question - the POPLA email says "Please enter this information onto the portal using the log in details that were provided previously", but when I log in to my case on the POPLA site I can find no link allowing me to enter/attach my comments. Any suggestions?

Umkomaas

Looks good to me.

I do have one further question - the POPLA email says "Please enter this information onto the portal using the log in details that were provided previously", but when I log in to my case on the POPLA site I can find no link allowing me to enter/attach my comments. Any suggestions?

The only thing you can do is to call POPLA on Monday. It's urgent that you do this as they allow no slippage in the timescale for rebuttal of PPC evidence packs.

Edna_Basher

The inability to upload attachments at the rebuttal stage is a long-standing glitch on the POPLA portal; one year down the line and POPLA still haven't got around to fixing it.

You can sent you rebuttal by e-mail to info@popla.co.uk. Ask them to provide you with written confirmation that your rebuttal has been added to your case file and that it will be properly considered at the assessment stage of the process.

Also, where ParkingEye's evidence pack fails to address any of the points you raised, highlight this to POPLA.

For example, add a sentence to the end of your Point 1:

"In its Evidence Pack, ParkingEye made no attempt to deny that parking at Southampton Town Quay is subject to statutory control. POPLA may therefore reasonably conclude that ParkingEye accepts that this location is not relevant land".

mamamia11

Thank you Edna. ParkingEye do have quite a bit to say regarding relevant land:

Edna_Basher

Thanks, that's interesting - the first time I've seen ParkingEye include this in a Town Quay evidence pack.

Coupon-mad

Yes very interesting to see that evidence pack wording. I'd not seen that either.

But they are wasting their time as the PCN was a non-POFA one sent too late anyway!

mamamia11

Success! Thank you all so much.

Umkomaas

Nice one, and well done. Also, thanks for posting the result in the POPLA Decisions sticky, I'm sure it will help and inspire other [STRIKE]Pokemon hunters[/STRIKE] motorists!

LOLLABEE

Hi!


Just checking how you got on with both of these- I am just about to send a POPLA appeal on the same grounds- and it is all a bit confusing!:eek:
L

Umkomaas

It's a month since the OP last visited the forum. As it's all over probably unlikely to return. Try sending a PM which means they'll get an email notifying them that you are trying to get in touch.