PE/Aldi Hidden clause.

bergkamp

Hello all.
The most recent NTK I have received from PE, has resulted in an admission from PE that there is a hidden clause in the supposed contract entered into by the driver.


‘ You have provided evidence of purchase. However, please be advised that this did not meet the discretionary criteria set by the landowner in this case. ‘


I know many consider that £30 is the amount needed on the receipt for a cancellation.
I know this not to be correct at this site, as I have had previous cancellations with driver receipts of between £20-£30 at first appeal.
I have won numerous POPLA appeals regarding this site over the years, using the correct legal points at the time. (Lost one WHOPLA, but nothing has been heard from PE since!)

Any thoughts welcome on entering a one point POPLA appeal regarding the hidden clause…

Coupon-mad

There's a template I wrote for that somewhere in the POPLA Decisions thread. Try searching for 'posts' (not thread results) using the keywords 'POPLA genuine customer exemption' or 'ParkingEye discretionary criteria POPLA' which might find a post in POPLA Decisions from the Autumn when I was writing some POPLA templates.

However, I would not recommend a one-point appeal to this POPLA service, even though a case was once won on this exact point with 'old POPLA' (ages ago) this current service is shocking by comparison.

bergkamp

Thank you Coupon-mad, pg118 of the POPLA decisions thread ;

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=71287634&postcount=2344

I shall use it as my first point in the appeal, but add others...

twhitehousescat

why is this clause hidden and not shown on signage?

how can you enter a contract when bits are "hidden"

Fruitcake

twhitehousescat wrote: »

why is this clause hidden and not shown on signage?

how can you enter a contract when bits are "hidden"

Because you are dealing with scammers who tell lies perchance?

Computersaysno

If the OP is comfortable on how to handle a PPC if they lose at POPLA [differs for each PPC] then I would say he/she should definitely do a one point appeal to POPLA. That way we can get a ruling on the specific point and reference it in other appeals.


The drawback with multiple point appeals is that the assessors skim reads the appeal, sees an obvious winner and refuses to make a judgement on the 'hidden clause' point.

bergkamp

Computersaysno wrote: »

If the OP is comfortable on how to handle a PPC if they lose at POPLA [differs for each PPC] then I would say he/she should definitely do a one point appeal to POPLA. That way we can get a ruling on the specific point and reference it in other appeals.


The drawback with multiple point appeals is that the assessors skim reads the appeal, sees an obvious winner and refuses to make a judgement on the 'hidden clause' point.

Well it is PE, who are very litigious... But it is an Aldi site.:)

I will draft up a single point POPLA appeal based on the CM template.
I will add previous PE PCN numbers from this site, that they HAVE cancelled on production of the drivers receipt at first appeal.

twhitehousescat

bergkamp wrote: »

Well it is PE, who are very litigious... But it is an Aldi site.:)

I will draft up a single point POPLA appeal based on the CM template.
I will add previous PE PCN numbers from this site, that they HAVE cancelled on production of the drivers receipt at first appeal.

can you find me an actual case number of a PE case on aldi land that has been to court?

bergkamp

twhitehousescat wrote: »

can you find me an actual case number of a PE case on aldi land that has been to court?

No.... That is the point!
If the appeal is rejected then it is just the DR+ letter chain...

bergkamp

'Genuine customer' exemption criteria unevidenced and not explained to drivers.


This parking operator offered parking to shoppers of Aldi, XXXXXXX XXX. It is not disputed that the occupants of the car were genuine shoppers. Notwithstanding that the driver has not been identified, we supplied receipts with the first appeal because I understand from my research of other cases, that this operator supplies a 'User Manual' or 'Site Manual' to Aldi which allows for 'genuine customers' to have their charges cancelled (regardless of whether a shopper overstayed) if the customer complains and show receipts.

It is noted that the contractual terms on the signage fail to advise customers of this secret clause or the ceiling of 'total spending' above which a parking charge will be cancelled, so visitors have no way of knowing these terms.


This evidence is vital because the operator rejected my appeal on the following basis, yet I have reason to believe the charge should have been cancelled:

‘You have provided evidence of purchase. However, please be advised that this did not meet the discretionary criteria set by the landowner in this case. We are therefore writing to advise that your recent appeal has been unsuccessful and you have now reached the end of the internal appeals procedure. This is because you have not provided sufficient evidence to show that you did not break the terms and conditions on the signage.’

So what is 'sufficient evidence'? A receipt for £10, or £50, or one with a higher spend than we showed them? ParkingEye are silent on the 'secret exemption clause' figure and have made my position impossible at appeal stage by not disclosing to customers what that 'discretionary criteria' is. Because of this, neither POPLA nor I can judge whether they have correctly applied it.


I contend that the occupants of the car did spend enough in Aldi for the PCN to be cancelled (copy receipt attached as proof of this submission), and if the operator disagrees I require sight of the full 'discretionary criteria' clause from the User Manual which forms a vital part of their contract with the landowner and/or Aldi. This will need to be a true copy and show the circumstances under which the operator will cancel a charge for a genuine customer, including any defined total spend limit where the clause applies.

POPLA please note: this is NOT a point of mitigation, this is a case of this operator failing to evidence that they have correctly applied the 'criteria' (whatever it might be) in the site/User Manual and if they cannot evidence that they did, then the parking charge cannot be considered 'properly given' at the point of refusing my appeal. A Site/User Manual sets out the criteria under which the parking enforcement operates from the retailers' informational point of view and it forms a vital part of the landowner contract which is relevant to this appeal.

If Parking Eye remain silent on any appeal point then it is deemed accepted.
Below are previous Parking Charge Notice reference numbers, from this site, that have been cancelled by Parking Eye with proof of purchase from the date of event;
Ref Parking Charge Notice – xxxxxx/xxxxxx
Ref Parking Charge Notice – xxxxxx/xxxxxx
Ref Parking Charge Notice – xxxxxx/xxxxxx
Ref Parking Charge Notice - xxxxxx/xxxxxx

bergkamp

Above first draft one point POPLA appeal for appraisal...