Parking Eye PCN: 10 minutes over

Redx

ideally you embed them into the final document and save as a pdf , the less work an assessor does, the better they may find in your favour

Coupon-mad

snarffie wrote: »

Phew, that's it...!

There are some hyperlinks in some of the points. Do I need to actually submit the photo's in the hyperlinks, or do I assume that the person looking at the appeal will just type the links into their browser?

Assume they will not! POPLA will not go looking for links, albeit some of those in the signage argument are just links, not images, so you can't change that.

Make the appeal pretty, with embedded pics.

snarffie

Thanks to you both. Will embed into the pdf and upload to POPLA.

Fingers crossed!

snarffie

Hi,

I've received a 44 page evidence pack from ParkingEye via POPLA, which I have to respond to. Could somebody take a look at my response before I submit to POPLA, please. I struggled with a response to points 5 and 6, as I thought they were a little weak in the first place, and I'm really not sure how to respond to PE's 1 page blurb/response regarding the ANPR system.

So here goes nothing...

snarffie

1: The minimum Grace Period was not allowed

ParkingEye state: “ParkingEye operates a grace period on all sites which gives the motorist time to enter a car park, park, and establish whether or not they wish to be bound by the terms and conditions of parking. There is sufficient grace period in place at this site which is fully compliant with the BPS code of practice. All grace periods in place are a minimum of 10 minutes or more in line with the BPA code pf practice.”

My response: ParkingEye’s own ‘evidence’ states that the “Time In Car Park” is 2hrs 10 mins 49 seconds, which is clearly within their own stated grace period. Leaving this aside, it is also clear that ParkingEye’s grace period is NOT in line with the BPA code of Practice as stated in my appeal statement, which is further reinforced by Kelvin Reynolds (also highlighted in my appeal). I firmly believe that the PCN should be cancelled on these grounds and as stated in my appeal.

snarffie

2: No evidence of period parked

ParkingEye have shown time stamped entry and exit photographs as per the initial PCN, with no further evidence submitted in support of this item.

My response: I believe that the content of my appeal is correct in that contrary to the BPA code of Practice, there is no record to show that the vehicle was parked longer than the time allowed PLUS the mandatory grace periods and there is no evidence to the contrary. Again, please refer to my appeal statement on this item

snarffie

3: The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces, there is no clear delimitations of the car park area and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.

ParkingEye state: “We have included a signage plan showing that there are signs situated at the entrance, exit and throughout the car park displaying the terms and conditions of the site.”

My response: ParkingEye have provided in their evidence pack a Car Park Signage Layout plan and a Key for Installation Locations. Firstly, this is clearly a PROPOSED layout as the definition in the key for each sign is described with the prefix “Sign to be installed..” ParkingEye have simply provided a PROPOSED site plan, rather than an AS-BUILT/AS INSTALLED site plan. There is absolutely no evidence of any installed signs or any survey of the signage AS INSTALLED.

There is also no evidence to confirm the location of the signs in relation to the parked car in the PCN.

The parking sign shown in the evidence pack is a stock image, rather than an on-site photograph and doesn’t indicate the real-world legibility of the sign. The only photograph of a sign in ParkingEye’s evidence pack is taken with backlit sunlight and is dark and clearly difficult to read. I believe that the arguments stated in my appeal have not been addressed by ParkingEye.

snarffie

4:The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge.

I do not believe that ParkingEye have addressed this point in their evidence pack.

snarffie

5:No evidence of Landowner Authority-the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.

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, especially with regards to entering into long term contracts with third party companies.

snarffie

Items 6 and 7 of appeal: ParkingEye have not provided a suitable response.