Parking Eye - Lying on evidence to POPLA

rhodes73

I can't believe that it has got to this stage but here goes.....

So i got a parking ticket from ParkingEye for parking on a Saturday morning although the sign clearly stated Monday to Friday.
We took a picture of the sign and you can see that some of the sign has been covered up with some sort of tape (the sign is high up so i'm guessing this was ParkingEye).
We appealed to ParkingEye which got rejected and we have now appealed to POPLA.

I have just seen the case file and ParkingEye are claiming that new signs were installed a month before we were parked. They have date \ time stamped pictures of the signs that show Saturday as a restriction. They also stated that drivers were given a two week grace period for the new restrictions.

I'm guessing that they installed the new signs with the tape and forgot to remove it after a grace period. You can clearly see from out picture that the sign was covered but i get the feeling that i'm going to lose my appeal based on the ParkingEye evidence!
Is there anything else i can do? I know that i'm innocent (and have the photo to prove it) but I'm not sure its enough (although it should be)

We haven't had a chance to check the sign since as i only got the case file today and the fine was originally issued 2 months ago.

Help!!!!

(I tried to post the image of the parking sign but because I'm a new posted it wont let me)

Redx

so you are at the rebuttals stage , so draft up a rebuttal

new users cannot post pictures here , its not a hosting site , hence your problem in trying to do so

host pictures on a picture hosting site (seems obvious doesnt it ?)

try tinypic or photobucket (the clues are in the names) and add a dead weblink to your reply (changing http to hxxp)

PE are not known as Parking Lie for nothing you know

rhodes73

So i read the POPLA site wrong and assumed that the ParkingEye case was just the image of the car entering and leaving and stated that my evidence was the picture of the sign, etc. I received an email from ParkingEye about 12 hours later with the full case which showed the additional photo's of the parking signs.
I can't seem to amend the comment to add more detail, it seems like now its been submitted thats it..... even though the email from POPLA states "You have seven days from the date of this correspondence to provide comments on this file. You can do this on the track existing appeal area of our website"

p.s. i did host the image on pic hosting site but it wouldn't let me post the url. Good idea about the dead web link!!!

hxxps://s28.postimg.org/bzb1ikczh/Parking_Fine.jpg

rhodes73

This is one of the images from ParkingEye..... Check the date, thats one month before i took my picture!?

hxxps://s24.postimg.org/w3fk61s4l/Parking_Eye_Evidence.jpg

fisherjim

POPLA are likely to say your photo is inadmissible as it is not date stamped


https://s28.postimg.org/bzb1ikczh/Parking_Fine.jpg

https://s24.postimg.org/w3fk61s4l/Parking_Eye_Evidence.jpg

rhodes73

this is what im worried about!! Madness, do they think i took the picture before hand, just in case!

Redx

its not about what they "think" , its about making an adjudication on the evidence presented to them , good or bad , from either side

it is factual , not personal#

and remember , ALL photographs are deemed "suspect" since it was found that UKPC were doctoring the times on theirs and were banned by the DVLA and reprimanded for it, with a police investigation as well (about 15 months ago)

so yes POPLA will treat photos in a different manner since they were duped by UKPC

Umkomaas

Montpelier Health Centre .... Again!

Have a read of this thread and give the surgery manager hell. Do this in parallel to dealing with your rebuttal of the PE evidence pack.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5583307

Redx

that surgery has a lot to answer for , so get onto your MP as well, seeing as he (or she) intervened in that other case linked above

they have signed a contract since these guidelines were published and ignored the guidelines completely

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles

Edna_Basher

With or without the masking tape, the sign is ambiguous.

Although the sign states that the car park is a "Patient & Visitor area only", it only specifies that patients of the Health Centre must enter their registration details at the reception area.

The sign places no obligation upon visitors to enter their registration details. Thus any visitor (who was not a patient) would not be in breach of the "parking contract" if they didn't enter their registration details. Nor would they be trespassing because the sign invites visitors to park.

Also, anybody parking there who was neither a patient nor a visitor would be trespassing i.e. there could be no breach of contract because there could be no contract.

Of course, this will probably be all beyond the wit of whichever POPLA assessor has been assigned to your case.

RobinofLoxley

I think all digital photos have information including the date when taken, embedded into the digital file.
I can see that yours according to the file details was taken on Monday 12th December 2016 at 15:23, is that correct? You should be able to display this info with the photo in your rebuttal to P.E.'s evidence.