Parking Eye PCN

Coupon-mad

sharry68 wrote: »

Ours do contain a lot of very small writing at the bottom of the sign which is unreadable at a distance but they do clearly state only 45 minutes free parking and then you have to pay set amounts to buy time after the 45 minutes free e.g another 90p will pay for an extra hours parking, I'd say the signs are more confusing than unclear. I'll have to see if I can go and take a photograph of one to post on here

OK, good, that gets you another POPLA appeal point and distinguishes this location from the Beavis case car park completely. I would say those signs sound confusing too.

The Beavis case decision and the findings at the previous hearing by the Court of Appeal, made it clear that a contract whereby a free period of parking was followed by a small tariff was 'entirely different' from that of the Beavis case (more complex) 'free licence then penalty' model.

You can find such a POPLA argument by searching 'POPLA entirely different tariff' and choose 'this board' and advanced search, then 'show POSTS'. Look for the most recent results, not old ones from six months ago.

Fruitcake

sharry68 wrote: »

In their original PCN letter they make a point of saying the signage is clearly displayed stating terms and conditions and costs and that the land is private and the parker will incur charges if they over stay so I'm guessing they are wise to the signage challenges !!

Parking Eye have lied in court. I suggest you disbelieve and challenge anything and everything they say. Do YOU think the signs are clear and unambiguous? If not, then they are unclear.

Coupon-mad

so I'm guessing they are wise to the signage challenges

That's what they want victims to think.

Your signs sound wordy and ambiguous, not the brief contractual terms set out in large letters in the Beavis signs. And not the same model anyway.

It is astonishing that this Country allows this ex-clamper 'industry' breathing space to take money from people. Honestly every day on this forum exposes scam after scam, rip-off after rip-off, and we had the Supreme Court lapping it up last year. Anyone would have thought that private parking companies offered a 'fair' business model with a purpose of 'parking management', to listen to the six out of seven Judges who stamped on Barry Beavis' case.

Gobsmacking even a year later. I dread them looking at Article 50 but hey, let's not get political.

sharry68

I'm ready to submit my appeal, should I do it on line or in writing. The POPLA website implies wordy template style appeals will be looked upon less favourably especially in cases like mine where the appeal is being made based on the length on time it took for them to issue the PCN

Redx

online , choose OTHER and add the popla appeal as a pdf attachment

put something like "see attached appeal" in the online comments box

Coupon-mad

sharry68 wrote: »

I'm ready to submit my appeal, should I do it on line or in writing. The POPLA website implies wordy template style appeals will be looked upon less favourably especially in cases like mine where the appeal is being made based on the length on time it took for them to issue the PCN

That's because the info on the POPLA website was 'influenced/helped' by the BPA, so they would say that, wouldn't they?

Guess what, when this POPLA service first started it said that rubbish about 'other' being less successful even though they'd never considered a single case at that point!



Online definitely, under 'other'.