Parking Eye - Lying on evidence to POPLA

RobinofLoxley

You shouldn't have a problem having your POPLA appeal allowed on the signage alone.
As part of your rebuttal to their evidence, If you send your photos(with the newspaper proof of the date) of the signs with duck tape covering the Saturday restrictions, that should sink Parking lie's ridiculous claim.

Looks like a very low tech and inept attempt at a scam by Parking Lie. Cover up restrictions with a piece of duck tape to catch people out. Remove said tape to take a photo of sign to 'prove' the restrictions apply. Put tape back on, trap a motorist and repeat.

Coupon-mad

I have mentioned this thread to the Parking Prankster because this needs publicising. Your evidence suggests the POPLA evidence might...well...how do we put this...possibly, allegedly be not quite 'right'? Watch the BPA scrabble to protect their beloved ParkingEye.

rhodes73 can you email the Parking Prankster to share these photos more widely and show a wider audience that the details in the digital file show your photos were taken on Monday 12th December 2016 at 15:23...two months after PE's alleged date?

Also, on Cassfrow's thread as already linked, there are two tabloid journalists email addresses (one published a story just last week about this place and PE) and also the local paper picked it up too. I strongly suggest you do the same.

Your photos appear to be dynamite. I am opening the popcorn as we speak. This looks very, very serious.

UKPC were banned by the DVLA for falsifying photo data (just sayin').

RobinofLoxley

Coupon-mad wrote: »

rhodes73 can you email the Parking Prankster to share these photos more widely and show a wider audience that the details in the digital file show your photos were taken on Monday 12th December 2016 at 15:23...two months after PE's alleged date?

Your photos appear to be dynamite. I am opening the popcorn as we speak. This looks very, very serious.

UKPC were banned by the DVLA for falsifying photo data (just sayin').

Also your new photos with yesterdays newspaper in shot as proof of the date and the tape still covering the 'Saturday' restriction!

Fruitcake

RobinofLoxley wrote: »

Also your new photos with yesterdays newspaper in shot as proof of the date and the tape still covering the 'Saturday' restriction!

Alongside parking lie's image of the sign showing the exact same marks on the brickwork that proves it is the same sign.

Thus you will have in chronological order,

The pre-Parking Lie signs used by you at PoPLA
The Parking Lie signs used at PoPLA
The current signs from you that exactly match your original signs taken before Parking Lie rebutted your evidence.

Thus Parking Lie can't wriggle out by saying "someone must have put tape over the signs after we took out pictures." Likewise they can't say, "the tape was there but removed by us before the alleged event, and then some rascal put the tape back up in exactly the same position with exactly the same creases as before."

A journo might be able to use better words to express what I'm saying here.

Perhaps Jonathan Creek might be able to explain how this all happened.

System

Leaving the issue of the signs aside, what does the Health Centre think the restrictions are. For example, are the open on Saturday so people can put their details in as required by the signs.

If this is the location, it would appear it is impossible to comply on a Saturday and gives more context to the reason why the Saturday timings have been covered over.

https://www.montpelierhealthcentre.co.uk/appointments/

rhodes73

I've sent Parking Prankster an Email and also the Bristol Post.

rhodes73

IamEmanresu wrote: »

Leaving the issue of the signs aside, what does the Health Centre think the restrictions are. For example, are the open on Saturday so people can put their details in as required by the signs.

If this is the location, it would appear it is impossible to comply on a Saturday and gives more context to the reason why the Saturday timings have been covered over.

It is open on saturday, i'm guessing the site hasn't been updated.

chicochad

I would point out The Fraud Act 2006 Fraud by false representation (Section 2) Parkingeye made a false representation dishonestly to POPLA
knowing that the representation was or might be untrue or misleading
with intent to make a gain for yourself or another, to cause loss to another or to expose another to risk of loss.
But they don't read anything it is all automatic. Worth a try.

RobinofLoxley

rhodes73 wrote: »

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"

There were issues with POPLA when trying to add comments in response to a PPC's evidence.
I was unable to add comments on the 'track your appeal" portal. Instead I had to write a document containing my rebuttal to the parking company's evidence, convert it to a pdf and then email it to info@popla.co.uk. If you do this put your verification code in the subject line and tell them that the attached 'comments' are in response to Parking Eye's evidence.
Then phone POPLA the next day to make sure they have received it and attached it to your case file.

Don't forget you only have 7 days from receipt of their evidence pack to send in comments to POPLA.

rhodes73

I've had my verdict back from POPLA and i....... lost my appeal! Basically because the photo was not time stamped (who time stamps photos these days!?) and the photo's with the paper were not taken into account as they were submitted afterwards!?

Not sure what to do now as my wife is 8 months pregnant and doesn't want the stress of me going to court, etc...

Here is the verdict from POPLA

The operator’s case is that the appellant did not gain the appropriate permit/authorisation for his vehicle registration VF57MBV on 26 November 2016 at Montpelier Health Centre Public Car Park, in line with the terms and conditions of the site. The operator has provided evidence of the signage at the site, which states, “Patient and Visitor Area Only. Restrictions apply Monday to Friday 8am to 6 pm Saturday 9am to 12pm.Patients of Montpelier Health Centre and Bath Buildings Surgery must enter their full correct vehicle registration number using the terminal at reception, in order to obtain 90 minutes free parking. Failure to comply will result in a Parking Charge of £100”. The car park is monitored by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system. From the images taken on the day in question, this shows the appellants vehicle entering the car park at 09.40 and exited at 10.29, a total stay of 48 minutes. The operator has provided a system printout from the day in question. This shows no record of the appellant’s vehicle registration being recorded. The appellant states that the restrictions at the site only apply Monday-Friday 8am to 6 pm and provided a photograph of the sign to support this. The PCN he received was issued on 26 November 2016, which was a Saturday. As a result of this, the appellant thinks he should not have received the ticket. In their evidence case file, the operator ParkingEye states that the signage advising of the new restrictions on site was installed on 17/10/2016. Motorists were given a two week grace period to understand the new restrictions and so they only applied on from 02/11/2016 onwards. The appellant has submitted a photograph of a sign at the site which shows that the Saturday restriction is covered over. However, this photograph is not date stamped so I am unable to determine when this was taken. Furthermore, in response to the operator’s case file, the appellant submitted further photographic evidence to POPLA taken on 24 January 2017. POPLA is not able to accept additional evidence submitted at this late stage so I have not taken these into account when making my decision. The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice under, Section 18.1 states, “In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are”. It further states, “ You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that the drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. While I note the appellant’s comments, it is ultimately the appellant’s responsibility to ensure he parks in accordance with the terms and conditions of the site. After reviewing the evidence, I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the photographic evidence of the signage at the site supplied by the operator shows the restrictions in place at the time the PCN was issued. In conclusion, as the appellant did not register his vehicle at the terminal in the Health Centre reception on the day in question, he was not entitled to park there. Therefore the PCN was correctly issued by the operator and I must refuse this appeal.