Draft POPLA appeal: any suggestions please?

MrFluffy

Yes, and I think that's going to be the main basis of my appeal. Thanks.

MrFluffy

Umkomaas - Thanks for the info.
Yes, it's definitely Parking Eye. I assume they must have someone patrolling the car park with a camera at the site in question.
There is a paragraph referring to the 29 days stuff.
There are photos - on their website - showing the sign near where my car is parked. As I said, it reads "Warning - Caravans Only". There is no further information on that notice. They have not provided photos of any other signage which notifies of charges for incorrect parking, and I didn't see any.

Umkomaas

I know you said you had no windscreen ticket, but did the photos they've included in the NtK show a ticket on the windscreen?

pappa_golf

think OP said NO in an earlier post

Umkomaas

pappa_golf wrote: »

think OP said NO in an earlier post

I don't see it PG. Point me to it?

My line of thought is whether this was a ghost ticket incident (with photos), in which case PE would have met the 29-56 day deadline for keeper liability. It would prove a bit difficult to contest this point.

If there's no proof in their photos of a ticket having been attached to the windscreen, then we're dealing with a man on a bike with a camera, and that's no different to an ANPR capture and PE would need to meet the 14 day deadline for keeper liability. In which case they fail and 'no keeper liability' becomes the key appeal point.

pappa_golf

post one half way down (buried in the rant)

Your letter stated incorrectly that a “notice to driver” was affixed to the vehicle on the date in question. No such note was in fact affixed, and your own photographs bear this out.

Quentin

MrFluffy wrote: »

I'll use a version of the letter on the newbies thread and see how that goes.

To clarify for the bus driver......

Make sure you follow the advice you have been given and don't try any variation from the blue text letter appeal. (It is intended to gain you a POPLA code)


When you get your code then come back for advice on your POPLA appeal, and put it up here before sending it in!


Don't waste time replying to the bus driver with his hobby horse - it's distracting you away from following the sound advice you are being given by others wanting to help you win!


In particular #27! You must delete all your references in this thread to who was driving, and never reveal who was driving to PE!

Umkomaas

Thanks PG. Eyes glazed over reading the rant!

In which case 'no keeper liability' will be a key appeal point, hence the advice @OP to stick precisely to the initial appeal (blue text) from the NEWBIES sticky.

It's at POPLA that we can get this charge revoked.

Don't lose the PE NtK letter with those no windscreen ticket photos.

MrFluffy

OK, thanks to all for the advice. I'll bin my original letter and use the newbie template in order to get a POPLA review.

To confirm again - there was definitely no windscreen notice and the PE photos clearly show this.

PS: You say "rant", I say "slightly over emotional reasoned argument!"

pappa_golf

correct , you could send

Dear Sirs,

I have received your Parking Charge Notice as detailed above.
Having reviewed your photographic evidence online, I am appealing on the grounds of unfairness for the following reasons:

1. Your letter stated incorrectly that a “notice to driver” was affixed to the vehicle on the date in question. No such note was in fact affixed, and your own photographs bear this out. There is no sign of a note in said photographs, and the first notice that I had was receipt of your letter yesterday, 11th November 2016, more than a month later. I therefore contend that yourNTK is not compliant with the POFA 2012 statutory wording, which states that the PCN should arrive by day 15.

2. You state that the grounds for the charge were “unauthorised parking”. The car was briefly parked in a caravan bay in order to facilitate safe dog walking, as the caravan parking area is close to the dog walking area. The regular car park was busy, being a Friday, and parking elsewhere would have forced the driver to walk the dog across what they judged, as a responsible dog owner, to be a dangerously congested area. As soon as the dog’s needs had been seen to, the car was moved to a regular parking bay. I contend that the car was parked in a caravan bay for less than 10 minutes, and the timings on your photographs bear this out.
Also, there were ample spaces remaining for any caravans to park, so car being parked where it was did not deprive any caravan drivers of a space. Once again, your pictures show this clearly.

3. One of your photographs shows a sign that says “Caravans Only”. However, the sign does not state that any charge will be applied to any other vehicles that park in one of those spaces, and no such signage was apparent. Had the driver been aware of the possibility of such a charge, the car would obviously not have been parked there.

It is surely the responsibility of ParkingEye Ltd to make the terms of their contract far clearer so that drivers have no doubt whatsoever of any supposed contract they may be entering into. I require ParkingEye Ltd to provide evidence as to how clear the terms and conditions are and consider if the methods used are clear enough for this type of car park. I would specifically like them to look into how clear the signs are that inform non-caravan drivers that charges exist for parking in the caravan bays.

Furthermore a contract can only be considered to be entered into if enough evidence exists that it actually happened. For a contract to have been entered into the driver would have had to get out of the car, read the signs, fully interpret and understand them and then agree to them.

I request that ParkingEye Ltd provide concrete evidence that a contract existed between themselves and the driver on the day in question, which meets all the legal requirements of forming a contract. They should include specific things including, agreement from both parties, clarity and certainty of terms etc. If they are not met then the contract would be deemed “unfair” under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999.
As a POPLA assessor has said previously in an adjudication
“Once an Appellant submits that the terms of parking were not displayed clearly enough, the onus is then on the Operator to demonstrate that the signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently clear”.

The parking company needs to prove that the driver actually saw, read and accepted the terms, which means that I and the POPLA adjudicator would be led to believe that a conscious decision was made by the driver to park in exchange for paying the extortionate fixed amount that Parking Eye is now demanding, which is clearly a ridiculous contention.

Furthermore, the landmark case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 establishes that a parking charge will only be valid where signage is clear and the driver therefore able to be fully aware of any charges. Parking Eye did not provide me with evidence that such signs, if present, were available throughout the car park and visible from the area where the car was parked at the time of the event.

I look forward to hearing from you to confirm my strong opinion that this charge is being unfairly levied, and that you will be dropping the charge.



or you could just send the BPA appeal as per "read this"

by sending the MSE appeal to PE , you are admitting nothing , PE will not cancel with weither appeal , but will back down quickly when you explain to popla