ParkingEye Aldi Westcliff-on-Sea

KeithP

LongLegs17 wrote: »

Once I get a response I'll (try again to) create a new thread with the template of my appeal and the outcome.

No, no, no.

Please do not start a new thread.

Continue with this thread if and when you have anything to ask or report.

LongLegs17

Aside from the automated message from POPLA after submitting the appeal, this is all I've received so far.

"Dear Sir / Madam,

Thank you for your correspondence in relation to the Parking Charge incurred on 07 July
2017 at XXXXX, at ALDI Westcliff-on-Sea car park.

Whilst we note your request that ParkingEye make payment of the sum referred to within
your correspondence, we must confirm that all invoices issued to ParkingEye by
motorists, whether they concern an alleged loss, cost or expense, either following
payment, appeal or any other issue, are categorically rejected.

You have not formed a legally binding contract with ParkingEye under which you have
acquired any right to invoice ParkingEye and/or seek payment for goods or services, and
the sum sought is therefore rejected.

Yours faithfully


Legal Services
ParkingEye Ltd"


Is this POPLA seeking compensation on my behalf?

Umkomaas

Is this POPLA seeking compensation on my behalf?

Nope. It’s PE responding to your initial appeal. This bit ....

Should you obtain the registered keeper's data from the DVLA without reasonable cause, please take this as formal notice that I reserve the right to sue your company and the landowner/principal, for a sum not less than £250 for any Data Protection Act breach. Your aggressive business practice and unwarranted threat of court for the ordinary matter of a driver using my car without causing any obstruction nor offence, has caused significant distress to me.

LongLegs17

Oh my bad, thanks.

Hopefully I'll hear from one or the other sometime this week and be sure to share the outcome.

Coupon-mad

What? You need to read other threads. You won't hear from POPLA before Christmas.

LongLegs17

So I did receive a response from POPLA two days ago, which for some reason ended up in my junk folder. PE have uploaded their evidence which is a 49 page PDF file challenging everything I've uploaded and I've got until the 26th to respond.

Do I just ignore this and wait for the 7 day period to expire and for POPLA to assess the appeal?

To reiterate, I appealed as the RK and have made no hints towards who was driving at the time of the alleged event.

nosferatu1001

No, you comment on it. Anything they haven’t rebutted from your appeal. You state this means they accept it.

Coupon-mad

PE have uploaded their evidence which is a 49 page PDF file challenging everything I've uploaded and I've got until the 26th to respond.

They always do that. You need to pick holes in it, and comment to POPLA before Christmas to put this behind you and not have it still to do on Boxing Day.

Look at these issues and tell POPLA what's missing or old or ambiguous or missing:

- the dates on their photo evidence, old photos? Point that out, if so.
- has the aerial 'map' got a date on it, or not, and does it fail to identify the location?
- does the 'evidence G' show a 'white list look up' and does it fail to identify the location?
- have they included a landowner contract, or witness statement from the retailer?
- have they admitted 'we are not relying on the POFA?' If so, point that out to POPLA!
- have they shown that they tried to issue a PCN in time (earlier) or not?

LongLegs17

This is what I'll be uploading...

I've just added more information...

===========================================

"While the parking charge may have been issued 'correctly', the NTK was non-compliant with the POFA 2012 and ParkingEye have admitted this themselves. They have also failed to provide anything that shows the keeper was driving and the keeper is not liable.

The dates on all but two of their supporting photos of signs are dated from between 2013 and 2015, with two other pages dated 2017. The aerial map has no date on the picture and no date on the page.

ParkingEye claim to operate a grace period of a minimum of 10 minutes at this and all other sites, yet in this instance there was an overstay of 10 minutes and 25 seconds and a PCN has been issued over 90+ days after the event.

No attempts were made by ParkingEye to issue the PCN earlier."

===========================================

LongLegs17

My final draft, I'm satisfied but I'll hold off until the morning just in case a resident expert spies an issue.

====================

"While the parking charge may have been issued 'correctly', the NTK was non-compliant with the POFA 2012 and ParkingEye have admitted this themselves. They have also failed to provide anything that shows the keeper was driving and the keeper is not liable.

The dates on all but two of their supporting photos of signs are dated from between 2013 and 2015, with two other pages dated 2017. The aerial map has no date on the picture and no date on the page.

ParkingEye claim to operate a grace period of a minimum of 10 minutes at this and all other sites, yet in this instance there was an overstay of 10 minutes and 25 seconds and a PCN has been issued over 90+ days after the event.

No attempts were made by ParkingEye to issue the PCN earlier.

They are not the landowner and have failed to provide a copy of the contract detailing the restrictions, charges, the date and the terms of business, definition of my status as agents or contractors and my assigned rights. A site agreement or witness statement is “not valid evidence” as per POPLA rules."

====================