Tower road Newquay

Umkomaas

Any advice on what to focus on

Go through every point they make and rebut anything you disagree with, anything not quite right or anything that is just plain wrong.

That 7-day deadline is fixed, POPLA will go ahead with their adjudication without hesitation whether they've received your rebuttal or not.

Do a quick forum search on 'ParkingEye rebut' or 'ParkingEye Evidence Pack' as there have been others over the recent past from which you might be able to gain some ideas.

msa123

Thanks,


Can I also add in the comments reference to the parking ticket they have cancelled. The appeals are identical except the additional paragraph. The timings were seconds apart so is it possible to question why they have cancelled one but not the other?

Umkomaas

msa123 wrote: »

Thanks,


Can I also add in the comments reference to the parking ticket they have cancelled. The appeals are identical except the additional paragraph. The timings were seconds apart so is it possible to question why they have cancelled one but not the other?

Why not, no harm in doing so.

Coupon-mad

There's another case on here this past week, where the OP says that the POPLA evidence for Tower Road includes a photo of a sign that can't be there because the background makes no sense.

Look at everything, dates on the photos (and lack of dates on some photos) as well as background.

There is also another POPLA appeal (won) where the Assessor said in this large and busy car park, that ten minutes at the start to park up, lock the car read the signs then queue & pay at the machine, is reasonable. I think it's mentioned in the thread that talks about the sign that's not actually at Tower Rd.

And now they must have shown the time the ticket was purchased? So how is the 17 minutes split, before and after the hour's parking?

msa123

Coupon-mad wrote: »

And now they must have shown the time the ticket was purchased? So how is the 17 minutes split, before and after the hour's parking?

4 mins before and 13 mins after
So well within the 10 mins they state they provide in their evidence before parking. And there should be a minimum of 10 mins after parking to leave according to the BPA rules. Is this correct? In which case 13 mins should be covered.

The witness statement is dated 13/9/2017 so could argue this aswell. Would this and grace periods be enough as only 2000 limit?

Umkomaas

Slightly away from specifics, please read my suggestion to Andrewuk here.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/73175870#Comment_73175870

Why not help the fight? Just a simple email with a cc.

Coupon-mad

And there should be a minimum of 10 mins after parking to leave according to the BPA rules. Is this correct? In which case 13 mins should be covered.

Yes but only if you explain why this car park at this time of year, on that day at that time, was so heaving that cars were crawling out.

Was it early August around the time of the BoardMasters' festival? Say so.

Was it late August Bank Holiday weekend? Point that out, if so. If not, then point out it was the height of the Summer Holidays before schools went back, etc. - lay it on THICK with a trowel, and then some!

And say that this is a large sandy and pebbly/pot-holed surface, at a beach, where pedestrians and children, surfboards, buckets and spades are strewn around in the way, and a car among a hundred or more others, cannot simply plough out, and even if they reached the exit within ten minutes, there is a busy main beachfront road to wait to join, with a traffic light feet away which stops the traffic, including those cars trying to leave Tower Road.

Otherwise some Assessors will think that the minimum ten minutes is set in stone. Size of car park is essential to point out, along with the surface of car park and how busy it is/how it leads to a road, must all be reminded or POPLA will sleepwalk into costing you £100.

Say the above in your comments even if it's already in the appeal. Tell POPLA this is the very first time that the operator has bothered to show you the way the minutes were allegedly split between arrival and paying (4 minutes seems short, but then the camera timer is not connected at all to the PDT machine - we all know they are two systems). And it's too late for you to introduce a new argument...

I reckon you were more likely to have really taken about 7 minutes to find a space, park and queue, read the terms then pay, and ten to leave. But that doesn't suit PE, does it? So they - allegedly - by accident or whatever - weight the end time and hope POPLA agree with them (and POPLA do).

msa123

is the below enough, could anyone please suggest what can be left out or re written to meet the 2000 character limit. currently it is 2031 characters.


Thanks




Rebuttal of evidence


Grace Periods


Parking eye state they operate a grace period compliant with the BPA code of conduct. Evidence G shows that the driver paid for parking 4 minutes after entering the car park. The driver left the premises 13 minutes after the parking period had ended. In relation to grace periods when leaving the car park, Section 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice should be applied. If a MINIMUM of 10 mins is applied as per section 13.4, then 13 minutes is perfectly reasonably when one considers the large size of this car park and the busy nature of it at that time of the year. As addressed in my appeal, upon leaving the car park there were delays caused by pedestrians with surf boards and turning/parking cars. There is a busy main beachfront road to wait to join, with a traffic light feet away which stops the traffic, including those cars trying to leave Tower Road. All these factors led to the driver taking a total of 13 minutes to leave after the paid for period ended.


Signage


ParkingEye have provided a map of their signs, as well as photos of the signage around the car park. However, as stated in my appeal, there is nothing on the signs that inform the driver that the timing could possibly start at the point of entry. The driver had no idea; nor does the Pay and Display machine give people any information to suggest that the time on the printed ticket is actually wrong and misleading.


Authority


ParkingEye have included in their evidence pack a ‘witness statement,’ but the document has not been signed by the landowner, but rather a managing agent of the site. No evidence has been submitted to confirm that this managing agent has the authority to act on behalf of the landowner, particularly with regards to entering into long term contracts with third party companies. Furthermore, the Witness Statement has been constructed AFTER the event. It is not the contract and should not be accepted in lieu of the contract, as ParkingEye appear to have concocted a retrospective Witness Statement when an existing contract should exist at the time of the parking event.


Finally, Parking Eye have cancelled the same charge and refused to contest an identical appeal for the same alleged offence on the same day and time from my father (POPLA ref xxxxxxxxxx, Parking Charge Notice xxxxxx/xxxxxx). As such it can be concluded that Parking Eye themselves believe this charge is unreasonable and should also be cancelled.

Coupon-mad

ParkingEye have included in their evidence pack a ‘witness statement,’ but the document has not been signed by the landowner, but rather a managing agent of the site.

Is the above true? I thought that produced a WS from the Golf Club, who are not a Managing Agent.

msa123

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Is the above true? I thought that produced a WS from the Golf Club, who are not a Managing Agent.

It states it is on behalf of the Golf Club, and signed by the Assistant secretary/ manager. I will remove that line


Apart from that, is the rest enough as a rebuttal or do i need more?