Parking eye appeal

Redx

you need to edit your posts above and remove your popla code

NEVER write personal information on the internet , its a public service where billions of people can read it and where malice and sc@ms abound

the main thing here is to show where they have failed in their evidence pack , on each and every main point , so show the popla assessor where they have failed (your appeal is already in and can be perused by the assessor, this stage is picking holes in the PE evidence pack)

remove any "waffle"

Beckie1406

the best hole I can pick is that all their photo evidence of signs etc are in daylight and the vehicle photos at the alleged offence are in the dark. They picture the barrier up so it isn't clear you enter the car park and its the same on their daylight evidence.

The contract they have sent is heavily redacted.

I cannot see any information for pofa so it doesn't transfer liability to the keeper.

Do. Just need to say this and not extend by using other posts on the forum. Is short a d sweet like this better?

Redx

basically , yes

if they failed POFA2012 , say so

if they havent transferred liability to the keeper , say so

if the photos are daylight photos and the incident happened at night with unlit signs , say so

if the contract is heavily redacted and not clear on its terms , say so

but keep any "waffle" out of this rebuttal, it needs to be short and concise, pointing out their errors yet still fit into the popla portal ad mentioned earlier

given your last post, you seem to understand exactly what is required , so no need to be "out of your depth", as you clearly are not judging by that reply in post #32

its just a matter of getting what you said into short and concise rebuttals and observations and removing all the irrelevant waffle in that earlier post

your signage points should be separated into several separate issues , including readibility (unclear) , being daylight photos when the incident was at night , etc

Beckie1406

how does this look as a final before I send:-




· In response to the "evidence pack" parking eye have submitted:
Parking eye Have submitted a 57 page ‘evidence’ 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. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) for the following reasons
• 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.
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. In any case, the document submitted which Parking Eye claim is an unredacted
· 3. Signage- Specifically mentioned in the BPA Code of Practice as the 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,
· 4 These signs 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.
· 5 There is nothing to prove how close the car was parked to a sign.
·
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed."

Coupon-mad

· 1. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) for the following reasons:

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.

That needs changing, because the second sentence does not answer the first. the NTK is not compliant because (if it's a golden ticket) it has nothing on the back about the POFA (and maybe it was served after 15 days? if so, say so).

And re this, shorten it as this will not fit in the POPLA comments box:

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. In any case, the document submitted which Parking Eye claim is an unredacted

I think make that shorter and say 'the landowner contract is heavily redacted, and covers up much of the information about the definition of services, so this makes one wonder what they are hiding (dates and times of control? a 25 minute grace period at weekends? Who knows) and as such, it fails to comply with the BPA CoP para 7.'

Also point out of the start date is more than 12 months ago and there is nothing to say the end date, or if the contract has been renewed, or continues into perpetuity*


And remove the whole intro as it will not fit:

· In response to the "evidence pack" parking eye have submitted:
Parking eye Have submitted a 57 page 'evidence' 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.

Just say - 'here are my comments on the evidence pack'.


*POPLA's own word - use their words back at POPLA and the penny might drop and you win!

Beckie1406

o
o

• Dear Sirs
  
  Ref. POPLA appeal
  In response to the "evidence pack" parking eye have submitted:
  
  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) the NTK is not compliant because it has nothing on the back about the POFA.
• 2. 'The landowner contract is heavily redacted, and covers up much of the information about the definition of services, so this makes one wonder what they are hiding (dates and times of control? a 25 minute grace period at weekends? Who knows) and as such, it fails to comply with the BPA CoP para 7.'
  The start date is more than 12 months ago and there is nothing to say the end date, or if the contract has been renewed, or continues into perpetuity
• 3. Signage- Specifically mentioned in the BPA Code of Practice as the 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.
  4.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,
• 5. These signs 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.
• 6. There is nothing to prove how close the car was parked to a sign
  
  
  Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed."

Beckie1406

I just wanted to say thank you to everyone for their advice and input dealing with this parking fine.
Popla have responded and upheld my appeal !!!128513;!!!128513;!!!128513;

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the appellant due to either not purchasing the appropriate parking time, or by parking without a valid permit.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states the parking operator have not complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. The appellant has questioned whether the parking operator has authority to operate on the land. The appellant states the signage at the site does not comply with the British Parking Association Code of Practice. Signs were not clear, prominent or legible. The appellant says the parking operator has not shown the individual they are pursing is the driver of the vehicle.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
I acknowledge the reason the operator has issued the PCN. The burden of proof lies with the operator to demonstrate that it has issued the PCN correctly. In this instance, I am satisfied that the keeper of the vehicle is entitled to appeal the validity of this PCN as the operator has issued a notice to the keeper’s address. I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using PoFA 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

Coupon-mad

Fantastic, and no idea why ParkingEye tried to contest a Golden Ticket POPLA appeal!



To encourages other newbies, and for posterity so your victory is more widely seen, please can you add a reply to POPLA Decisions (top of the forum) with a link to this thread, stating that your win was against ParkingEye in a ''golden ticket'' (non-POFA) case.

Liverpoolfc1967

Parked in a station car park. Payment machine does not work, so decide to pay by phone. I get on the train and forget to make payment.

I REMEMBER by the evening and pay for the parking in full on the evening (2 days parking, £10.10). I have train tickets to show that payment was made in full.

I receive a ticket however due to payment being made late. What are my grounds for appeal I paid in full, just late. I don't have the picture showing their parking meter was not working.

KeithP

Liverpoolfc1967, you have been on MSE's forums long enough to know not to hijack someone else's thread.

You incident is nothing like the original poster's, so I cannot imagine why you thought it was a good idea to post here.

Please have a read of post #1 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread and if you still have questions the start your own thread.

Thanks.