Parking Eye PCN: 10 minutes over

snarffie

Thanks for that. There was a signature and printed name/position at the bottom. The signature is dated just under two weeks ago.

Umkomaas

snarffie wrote: »

Thanks for that. There was a signature and printed name/position at the bottom. The signature is dated just under two weeks ago.

Really press on the restrospective nature of this. Surely if PE had a contract in place at the time of, or before the parking event, why on earth would they be putting their client through the need to concoct this?

And wouldn't a client be asking them why do they need it as there is (or should be) an existing contract?

Something smells fishy in Grimsby!

snarffie

That's great. Have [STRIKE]butchered your comment[/STRIKE] modified item 5: (Hope it still makes sense):o

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.

With reference to para. 6, this 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.

snarffie

Just received a successful decision from POPLA :j

A few of my grounds were rejected, but this was the one that brought me success:

"In this instance, taking into account the above I am satisfied that the appellant was not presented with a reasonable time period to exit the site, after the contract had entered. I am satisfied that 10 minutes is a reasonable time period to exit the site. As such, I conclude that the Parking Charge Notice had been issued incorrectly. I appreciate that the appellant has raised further grounds for appeal however, I have not taken this into account as I have allowed the appeal on grace periods."

Thanks to everybody for their advice, particularly Coupon-mad and Umkomaas without which I would likely have given up and paid. :beer:

DoaM

Why are you assuming a few of your grounds were rejected ... does the full POPLA wording make that clear? (That's not what the last sentence you've quoted above means).

PS - well done

snarffie

DoaM wrote: »

Why are you assuming a few of your grounds were rejected ... does the full POPLA wording make that clear? (That's not what the last sentence you've quoted above means).

PS - well done

You're quite right. I didn't appreciate that the first few paragraphs of the decision actually related to the narrative for the successful application rather than rejected grounds (It mentions keeper liability and the ANPR evidence being compliant). I skim read it.