We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
ParkingEye PLeasureland Morecambe
Comments
-
Thanks all - here's what I submitted in the comments box:
PE has not addressed the constrained circumstances at Pleasureland car park on the day in question – outlined in my evidence file in relation to grace period. There are two grace periods to consider, not one.
PE state in their case summary (Sectionthat, “All grace periods in place are a minimum of 10 minutes or more” but PE fail to reveal what the site-specific graced periods are at Pleasureland car park. This information appears to have been redacted in their basic supply agreement (Section G).
My appeal evidence includes reference to a similar (POPLA decided) ‘13 minute’ case, where the Assessor found as fact, that a similar alleged overstay period was perfectly reasonable, given the popularity, position and nature of this holiday-resort car park.
PE has not acknowledged the fact that the ticket machine instructions give a misleading impression to the driver that the printed ticket time is the commencement time of the parking contract. PE has not provided a photo of the ticket machine instructions but a photo is included in my evidence file under ‘inadequate signage’. The misleading instruction (bottom left hand corner of photo) reads, “During busy periods please find parking space prior to purchasing ticket”. This instruction confirms the position that there has to be a grace period allowed at the start, in addition to (not offset against) the minimum ‘ten minutes after’ paid-for time.
PE has shown no evidence that their contract with the landowner (Section G) is current and the associated ‘terms and conditions’ are largely illegible in the evidence pack.0 -
Popla appeal decision arrived - unsuccessful. Can't believe it - thought I had a strong case.
No reasoned argument of my evidence by the assessor. They summarise my arguments, then ignore the lot by simply noting the terms and conditions in the signage; that I entered into a contract and failed to purchase correct amount of time. I would expect that from Parking Eye but not this lot. What a pathetic, useless non-job they do.0 -
alll you can do now is put the same arguments before a judge , who may well decide in your favour
you would have to wait for an MCOL within 6 years for this to happen0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 351.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards