Parking eye appeal

Beckie1406

I am tracking and it just says pending

Beckie1406

I've had a popla update. Pe have uploaded their evidence. Do I need to comment or just sit tight.
All of their signage photos are taken in daylight and aren't particularly big built seen to be everywhere.
It was a dark November night and the driver didn't see anything about paying. They offer pay by phone but again this wouldn't be seen in the dark.
The photos don't show an obvious entrance or exit either.
Worried this won't go in my way but parking eye don't mention anything about the golden ticket part I talked about in my appeal to popla.
Any advice most appreciated please

KeithP

You need to comment on it.

You need to pick holes in everything they say.

Most importantly you need to remind PoPLA that PE have not disputed your assertion that there is no keeper liability.

I guess you didn't see this in post #3 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread:

How can I comment on the evidence sent to POPLA, they've written a lot and shown lots of pictures of signs?!

Look through the evidence and find things to rebut - such as the signage being unclear, illegible, sparse/nothing to show how close the car was to a sign. Or the witness statement/contract being heavily redacted, out of date, not signed by the landowner, or even just that it shows no expiry date (POPLA seem to like that).

Your comments are to rebut the operator's case, blow by blow (but make it CONCISE) without naming the driver. Do not re-write your appeal or call it 'an appeal' or POPLA will not read it.

There are samples of evidence 'comments' following that quoted text.

Beckie1406

So I have an argument that there is no pofa information on the original notice and all the photos they provide show the signs in daylight and the ticket was as night?

Coupon-mad

Beckie1406 wrote: »

I've had a popla update. Pe have uploaded their evidence. Do I need to comment or just sit tight.
All of their signage photos are taken in daylight and aren't particularly big built seen to be everywhere.
It was a dark November night and the driver didn't see anything about paying. They offer pay by phone but again this wouldn't be seen in the dark.
The photos don't show an obvious entrance or exit either.
Worried this won't go in my way but parking eye don't mention anything about the golden ticket part I talked about in my appeal to popla.

Comment on both issues (signs in the dark, and no keeper liability possible from a non-POFA Notice to Keeper). Keep it short and sweet, just a few lines, and be very careful NOT to imply who parked.

What you said above is perfect to put in the POPLA Portal as comments, except obviously do not use our own term ''golden ticket''! POPLA won't know what you mean. It's a 'non-POFA Notice'.

You will WIN a Golden Ticket POPLA appeal v PE.

Beckie1406

how does this look:-




o
o



Dear Sirs

Ref. POPLA appeal
In response to the "evidence pack" parking eye have submitted:
Parking eye Have submitted a ___ point !!!8216;evidence!!!8217; pack in support of their speculative and disputed invoice. I do not intend to address each and every point they have raised in detail as their submission is clearly a quickly hashed template, much of which is repetitive or indeed irrelevant to the matter at hand.

In making their assessment I ask the POPLA assessor to consider the following in further support of my original POPLA appeal as submitted on 5/2/18.

1. There is no Genuine Pre-estimated of Loss breakdown included to show how they have come up with £100 - I am not sure this is possible and is any case a moot point as the burden of proof is upon Parking eye to demonstrate the loss that has occurred as a result of the alleged breach. Despite submitting this huge 'evidence' pack they have failed to do this.





2!!!8226; The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) for the following reasons
!!!8226; The Notice to Keeper (NTK) was delivered outside of the relevant period specified under sub-paragraph 9 (5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)
!!!8226; The Notice to Keeper does not warn the keeper that, if after a period of 28 days, ParkingEye Ltd. has the right to to claim unpaid parking charges as specified under sub-paragraph 9 (2) (f) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
!!!8226; 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.
3. There seems to be no valid copy of an unredacted contract included between Parking Eye and the Car Park, which could include information about 'money changing hands' in the contract - thus hiding information that could be relevant to the costs calculation fails to meet the strict proof of contract terms needed. In any case, the document submitted which Parking Eye claim is an unredacted contract is dated after the alleged breach of contract took place.
4. Signage- The colours blue and yellow are specifically mentioned in the BPA Code of Practice as the sort of bright colour contrasts to avoid. Use of capital letters and mixing large and small font are also deemed unclear as far as signage is concerned. Parking Eye have mixed this into their signs despite the fact they appear to be new and should match the requirements of the BPA CoP.
Furthermore it simply would not be possible to read any signs whilst in a moving car, and certainly not have read them sufficiently to have be deemed to fully understand the T&C's to which it is alleged I agreed as the registered keeper of the vehicle. Parking Parking eye's own 'evidence' photos show that a number of the signs are perpendicular to the flow of traffic, and could not be seen in the dark and the rain as on the night in question. All of the photos in parking Eyes evidence pack are a year old and are provided only in daylight. There is nothing to prove how close the car was parked to a sign.

3. In the case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co
Lord Dunedin said that a stipulation: !!!8220;!!!8230; will be held to be a penalty if the sum stipulated for is extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison with the greatest loss which could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach.''...''it is a penalty when a single lump sum is made payable by way of compensation, on the occurrence of one or more or all of several events, some of which may occasion serious and others but trifling damage".

Furthermore I point the POPLA adjudicator to the follows verdicts from recent adjudications, circumstances which are virtually identical to this case in which the appeal was upheld on one or more of the reasons I cite in my appeal.

In consideration of all the evidence before me, I find that the operator has failed to prove that the parking charge amount was a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed."



I've got to look at the evidence pack again but it's so long but I expect this is intentional to make me give up

KeithP

That is 3,974 characters. The PoPLA portal allows 2,000 characters.
Some pruning needed.

1. there is no mention of Genuine Pre-estimated of Loss in your original PoPLA appeal, and rightly so. You cannot introduce new evidence at this comments stage, and even if you could, Genuine Pre-estimated of Loss is definitely not a point worth introducing.

2. You seem to be repeating the no keeper liability from your appeal.


What does this sentence mean and why is it there:

Furthermore I point the POPLA adjudicator to the follows verdicts from recent adjudications, circumstances which are virtually identical to this case in which the appeal was upheld on one or more of the reasons I cite in my appeal.

Delete this sentence:

In consideration of all the evidence before me, I find that the operator has failed to prove that the parking charge amount was a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Beckie1406

I've used alot of bits from elsewhere so will take out what you have suggested.
I've repeated about pofa as I believe I have a golden ticket from pe.
I'll take the loss part out although I have said previously that I feel that the charge is disproportionate.
What happens if popla reject and I lose?

KeithP

Your response really should be discrediting all the PPCs evidence.

Not reinforcing or repeating your appeal points, but rejecting the PPC's points.

Any of your appeal points that they haven't challenged should also be highlighted.

As you have a 'golden ticket' it is right that you should point out that PE have failed to transfer liability to the keeper.

Beckie1406

Dear Sirs

Ref. POPLA appeal
In response to the "evidence pack" parking eye have submitted:
Parking eye Have submitted a 57 page !!!8216;evidence!!!8217; pack in support of their speculative and disputed invoice. I do not intend to address each and every point they have raised in detail as their submission is clearly a quickly hashed template, much of which is repetitive or indeed irrelevant to the matter at hand.

In making their assessment I ask the POPLA assessor to consider the following in further support of my original POPLA appeal as submitted on 5/2/18
1!!!8226; The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). Parking eye have failed to transfer liability to the keeper.
2. There seems to be no valid copy of an unredacted contract included between Parking Eye and the Car Park, which could include information about 'money changing hands' in the contract - thus hiding information that could be relevant to the costs calculation fails to meet the strict proof of contract terms needed.
3. Signage- Use of capital letters and mixing large and small font are also deemed unclear as far as signage is concerned. Parking Eye have mixed this into their signs despite the fact they appear to be new and should match the requirements of the BPA CoP.
Furthermore it simply would not be possible to read any signs whilst in a moving car, and certainly not have read them sufficiently to have be deemed to fully understand the T&C's to which it is alleged I agreed as the registered keeper of the vehicle. Parking Parking eye's own 'evidence' photos show that a number of the signs are perpendicular to the flow of traffic, and could not be seen in the dark and the rain as on the night in question. There was no barrier down on the entrance to the car park to indicate the need to pay. It is also in the upright position on the photos. If it was down there would be an indication payment was required. All of the photos in parking Eyes evidence pack are a year old and are provided only in daylight. There is nothing to prove how close the car was parked to a sign.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed."

I think I've covered everything but their 57 pages of blurb is quite intimidating and although I'm not silly I feel a bit out of my depth