Suitable initial appeal to parking eye?

gerbilpasty

Ok, I've made a pdf with pictures and textboxes with descriptions of the pictures and added this text:

Below is a picture of the sign at the entrance of the car park. As you can see it is unreadable. If there was sufficient light to read the sign it would be brighter, like the window in the background. To the left is the second sign you pass on the way into the car park. Also unreadable due to the lack of light and the glare from the light behind. Had the lamppost on which the sign is mounted been illuminated, the sign would have been considerably more visible.

This is a photo of the nearest sign to the space in which the driver parked. As you can see it is facing away. This in itself is not a problem but there is no additional signage for drivers parking in this area and facing this direction. Further, the sign is, again, not illuminated (I took this photo using flash as without flash you cannot see the sign in question.) Had an illuminated sign been facing the vicinity of the parking space used by the driver it is considerably more likely they would have seen the terms of parking when they got out of the car.

[FONT=&quot]Obviously there are more than these two signs in the car park. However these two are the only ones that would be close enough to notice in daylight hours or with proper lighting. Should you disagree that the signage was inadequate in both placement and quantity I require strict proof that there is signage visible from where the car parked. This does not, however, change the fact that none of the signage in the car park was illuminated or readable at the time of the alleged breach of contract.[/FONT]

gerbilpasty

1) ParkingEye states on page 6 of the evidence pack that “there is sufficient ambient lighting on site.” As I said in my POPLA appeal, there are lampposts in the car park to provide ambient lighting, they were, however turned off at the time of the alleged breach of contract. In my POPLA appeal I presented photos which show the signs were not visible due to a lack of ambient light. ParkingEye have failed to rebut this and instead have provided me with lots of pages of pictures of signs from the car park taken in daylight. In my POPLA appeal I requested that ParkingEye prove the signs are easily readable whilst not illuminated and they have failed to do this.


Further they also comment on the same page that “There are also signs at the entrance to the car park which adjoin an illuminated public road and so we can confirm that there is sufficient ambient lighting at this site.” Yet provide no evidence that the sign is sufficiently illuminated from streetlights on the road.

2) The contract provided has not been signed by the landowner, but rather a member of staff working on site. No further evidence has been submitted to confirm that this member of staff has the authority to act on the behalf of the landowner, especially with regards to entering into long-term contracts with 3rd party companies.




I would have commented on No Keeper Authority but I don't know if it's worth it because I had the NTK with the "29 days...keeper liability paragraph" and already mentioned it in the POPLA appeal.

Thanks

Coupon-mad

OK, I think you are right to keep it to those two points of rebuttal - nice and simple.

gerbilpasty

Just got my decision from POPLA and the appeal was successful . I won on the grounds that PE couldn't prove that the signs were visible during the night when I was parked.

Thanks for all the help!

Coupon-mad

Great news!