ParkingEye @ ASDA, Brighton Marina - POPLA help please!

Fruitcake

As for submitting your own picture of the entrance signs, this is not new evidence, it is rebutting parking lie's evidence.

They say, this sign is here, your rebuttal is, no it's not and here is a picture to prove it. They have not provided anything to show there was such an entrance sign at the time of the event. It is not there now, and based on the balance of probabilities, it is unlikely that parking lie would have removed it, especially as the site map show there was never a sign there.

It would be worth having a careful close up look at the signs in person. I believe the signs at my local ASDA are the original Not so Smart signs with parts covered over by new wording. I wonder if yours are the same. I also wonder what the signs would look like if somehow the covered up bits some how fell off exposing the wording underneath.

sidvinnon

Fruitcake wrote: »

As for submitting your own picture of the entrance signs, this is not new evidence, it is rebutting parking lie's evidence.

They say, this sign is here, your rebuttal is, no it's not and here is a picture to prove it. They have not provided anything to show there was such an entrance sign at the time of the event. It is not there now, and based on the balance of probabilities, it is unlikely that parking lie would have removed it, especially as the site map show there was never a sign there.

Great, I will make sure I get down there and take a photo then! Thanks for the reply!

Fruitcake

Which is the sign you are saying wasn't there at the entrance? I am trying to work out which it is from their pdf.

sidvinnon

Fruitcake wrote: »

Which is the sign you are saying wasn't there at the entrance? I am trying to work out which it is from their pdf.

Sorry, I should have made it clear. It's these two:
http://imgur.com/a/y1y61

Fruitcake

I'm still confused. I can only see one parking sign in each image. Both appear to be the same sign, and the signage map only show one sign at that position.

I can't see the one from your appeal as the host site has deleted the images. In other words, I don't know what signs you are comparing to show one of them is different.

sidvinnon

Ah, sorry again. I've added my 2 images to that link now.

Fruitcake

sidvinnon wrote: »

Ah, sorry again. I've added my 2 images to that link now.

So you are saying that the sign on the short poles in images 3 and 4 provided by parking lie were not there on the date of the alleged event, and only the sign on images 1 and 2 were?
It's a shame your pics don't show the short poles as well.

When you go back, take pics from the point of view of a car as it immediately comes off the roundabout. It may be possible that the signs on the short poles are not visible initially.
It is also possible that the lights of a car exiting the car park might dazzle or distort the driver's view of the signs at that moment, and might do the same as the second sign next to the electrical cabinet comes into view. It would therefore be an idea to take pictures at night showing the headlights of oncoming cars, or cars in the car park to demonstrate this point.

If it is night time and not too busy, the driver could stop momentarily to take pictures through the windscreen, even if the driver's mirror obscures the alleged signs.

Parking lie were recently caught out when they doctored signs at two different locations this year. One was a NHS surgery in Bristol where the motorist took pics of signs that had been temporarily modified by sticky tape, but parking lie's images of the signs didn't show this. The other was a sign at a hospital that was in a picture provided by a motorist, but the sign had been removed completely in parking lie's picture, although the screw holes in the wall were still visible.

In other words, parking lie are not averse to doctoring signs after the alleged event has taken place.

sidvinnon

Yeah exactly that. Yes it would have been nice to show that area in my original pics, but it also now means I can prove that those signs are not there now. I presume they wouldn't have included those images had mine shown they didn't exist.

Fruitcake

sidvinnon wrote: »

Yeah exactly that. Yes it would have been nice to show that area in my original pics, but it also now means I can prove that those signs are not there now. I presume they wouldn't have included those images had mine shown they didn't exist.

No, they tell lies and would say there were signs there on the alleged date even when there are none. PoPLA will then believe them, even when you have proof. This is what happened in the two cases I mentioned above. PoPLA said the motorist's images were not date stamped (even though the metadata said they were) so this wasn't accepted as proof.

sidvinnon

Perhaps they will, I'll still raise it with POPLA anyway. I think the entrance sign and its poor location and illumination is the main reason why this happened in the first place. I'd be prepared to try and find an independent witness to verify that sign was not present at the time if needed.