Rejected Popla Appeal

Coupon-mad

Albert_Villager wrote: »

10/4/15 - Appeal to Popla - At this stage Parking Eye had installed additional signage, moved existing signs and painted double yellow lines along the service road. My argument was that if signage was sufficient at time of alleged offence why would they install additional signs and double yellow lines. The new additional signage was basically solving the inadequacies which I had complained about in my initial appeal.

Would really appreciate some advise on this, what are my options? I can forward photos of the service road at time of offence and signage now which incorporates all the new signs and double yellow lines. If I don't pay (which I'm not intending to) what would be my chances in court, would I need to pay court costs (assume small claims)?

You should have been sent a copy of the signage 'evidence' that PE provided to POPLA, maybe ages ago but appellants are sent a copy. Did they provide photos of the signs as they really appeared at the time or did they provide a misleading evidence pack to POPLA?

You won't get any more letters from WH and you can't complain, can't ask for a review or argue it; that door is shut in your face. You'll hear from ParkingEye next with a pre-court letter, intimidating you because you 'lost the appeal'.

You are likely to have to fight this at a hearing and at least you would get a fair hearing. Your photos show very good evidence - I think I've seen that exact photo evidence before in another forum thread ages ago. Was the building at the top a supermarket, I seem to recall?

You have very good evidence that no signs/lines were visible whatsoever. You should take WH's decision with a pinch of salt but be aware this will not be a cakewalk at a hearing because PE will send a solicitor and will argue the signs were 'clear enough' and will point to the POPLA decision as persuasive.

It's not, partly because it's WH which is not 'proper POPLA', has raised huge concerns about a conflict of interest and whose decisions are not even being reviewed by the ISPA scrutiny panel if people complain...because of what appears to be a major falling-out with the BPA in the middle, being the cause of all this by appointing an - apparently - unsuitable party to pick up these POPLA cases.

So, now you know what you are up against, but knowing you have really good photo evidence of 'no contract terms visible at the time' - and can cite Vine v Waltham Forest as well as ParkingEye v Beavis, in support of that argument - if you are up for seeing this out at a hearing then sit tight and await PE's LBCCC, which you will need to respond to robustly.

Worst case scenario if you lose at a hearing is you'd pay about £90 or £100 more than the £100 PCN, so no huge costs, not in small claims. We would assist you with writing a defence and/or you could get more help on pepipoo forum too.

On either forum, do not reply if a poster with less than the thousands of posts that us regulars have, send you a private message offering to 'help' off-forum. You never know who people are on t'internet or what their agenda is, so decide if you are up to have this heard at a fairer hearing and if so, tell us when you get a LBCCC.

Albert_Villager

The signage evidence sent from PE to Popla detailed all proposed signage including the ones added after my initial appeal.

Yes the site is a the top of a supermarket so assume same site as the previous thread on other forum.

See extract from the Burton Mail from some time ago, wish I'd seen article when it was first published, could this help with court case?

"A COMPANY based on The Pipeworks in Swadlincote has offered its support to customers hit with parking fines in the run up to Christmas.

Nigel Hough, who runs Swadlincote Veterinary Clinic said he and his team would be happy to help those who were slapped with fines as they shopped in the run up to Christmas, as he believed the fines are 'unfair'.

Several people returned to their cars to find £100 penalty notices on the windscreen, when they parked on the Pipeworks' road leading out of the complex on Coppice Side, despite the fact there were no yellow lines or restrictions there.

Mr Hough said: "The car park was so full that people were parking on the main road leading to the roundabout. They were on the side of the road, there were no double yellow lines, and they weren't blocking traffic.

"There is nothing to suggest they shouldn't park there. It's unfair."

He urged anybody who has received a ticket to contact the clinic on 01283 213707, and staff would be happy to send a letter on their behalf..

"People were just enjoying shopping and went back to a £100 fine. It's incredible. The amount is extortionate. For councils to fine people is one thing, but for the management company, which wants people to come and shop here, to do it is incredible," Mr Hough said.

The car park is operated by Parking Eye, which works on a system of automatic number plate recognition. A spokesman for the company said it would not be able to comment on the issuing of fines.

A sign at the side of the road informs people not to park outside marked bays, but does not specify that also applies on the road.

Thanks again for your help.

Coupon-mad

Albert_Villager wrote: »

The signage evidence sent from PE to Popla detailed all proposed signage including the ones added after my initial appeal.

How very sneaky and misleading (not surprising though). Something to mention in any court defence - and you can prove at a hearing that they mislead POPLA, by showing the evidence pack photos as opposed to the truth (your photos plus the newspaper article).

Yes the site is a the top of a supermarket so assume same site as the previous thread on other forum.

See extract from the Burton Mail from some time ago, wish I'd seen article when it was first published, could this help with court case?

Yes, definitely refer to newspaper articles in support of your case.

Again this is evidence (exhibits to illustrate the defence statement) for the actual hearing but you will need to put a bullet point in the initial defence, mentioning you will use the newspaper reports in evidence, to prove there really was a lack of lines & signs at that time.

Albert_Villager

Hi, been a while since Wright Hassall rejected my appeal, when would they normally start sending the threatening letters / court summons as I've heard nothing from them since?

Thanks

Redx

whatever happens they definitely will NOT send a court "summons" as this is a civil case

if any court papers do arrive, it will be an MCOL (google it) , a small claims court claim , and will be issued by PE and within the 6 years maximum

Albert_Villager

Hi, recently sent a letter to Parking Eye informing them of a change of address, had standard letter back from them (via email) which states balance still outstanding and full payment is required to prevent further action.

They threaten referral to a credit reference agency, instruction to solicitors to secure immediate payment, referral to debt recovery or the issuance of court proceedings. Am I right to assume they can't do anything until a court awards in their favour?

As always any advice gratefully received.