ParkingEye Rebuttal

kryptonite786

Hi All

I am helping a friend who received a PCN from Parking Eye, they have admitted to being the driver whilst using the gym where the PCN was received. They have also sent a brief appeal PE and to POPLA (without utilising information on forums) and are now at the rebuttal stage.

In the appeal to PE and POPLA evidence of the entrance and exit log times at the gym were shown. I believe you have to enter a vehicle registration on entry, Im not sure if this was done or not at the time.

Looking at the evidence pack the signs do not match the signs that are currently there, they are totally different, also I have not noted any entrance signs. The ANPR photos clearly match the log times of entrance at the gym. There is also no witness statement of authority to issue PCN's on the land. I just wanted some guidance on what the best points would be to use and if they are relevant, as for PoFa can this be used as the driver has been admitted.

Many Thanks

Coupon-mad

There is also no witness statement of authority to issue PCN's on the land.

They don't have to, if a weakish POPLA appeal was lodged without mentioning that you wanted to see evidence of 'landowner authority'.

You can't add points now that you didn't have in the POPLA appeal itself.

Looking at the evidence pack the signs do not match the signs that are currently there, they are totally different, also I have not noted any entrance signs.

Would be a good point of the POPLA appeal had included photos of the signs that are really there. Trouble is, again, your friend can't add photos/new evidence now.

I would pick on the dates on their photos of the signs, and use that to rebut that these are the actual signs in 2018. Old pictures are no evidence at all.

And I would take a good look to see if they've included any picture of this elusive 'keypad/iPad' located as they suggest, inside the Gym at Reception...usually they don't - so you point out that there is no evidence that there was a keypad in the Gym because PE have failed to show any photos of it, and you believe that no such keypad existed on the material date.

kryptonite786

I think were in a sticky situation......

The trouble is the signs in the evidence pack don't mention the gym users have access to the car park as it states the residents have access, however the correct signs that are actually there do say that the gym users have access providing a registration number is entered in the keypad. Does this mean POPLA will go with the incorrect signs in the evidence pack as I cannot provide new evidence?

Is there any possible way I can include the correct signage? Also can I use the entrance log times provided by the gym as a strong point in the rebuttal

In terms of the dates of the signs, it is dated 1/03/18 can I still rebut this as being old?

And I would take a good look to see if they've included any picture of this elusive 'keypad/iPad' located as they suggest, inside the Gym at Reception...usually they don't - so you point out that there is no evidence that there was a keypad in the Gym because PE have failed to show any photos of it, and you believe that no such keypad existed on the material date.

will definitely use this point

Coupon-mad

In terms of the dates of the signs, it is dated 1/03/18 can I still rebut this as being old?

You can if the signs have changed recently.

The only way to include a photo or two with a SHORT rebuttal (please don't try to paper the cracks of a weak appeal with a long spiel, POPLA will dig their heels in if you try) is to email it to POPLA and you/the friend already has their email addy.

I would make it short and snappy and say you are not adding new appeal points but are horrified to see the PPC has put into their evidence pack the OLD photos of signs in March, when there was no wording about gym users being exempted. The regime has changed very recently to exempt gym users, but the evidence pack has failed to:

- show the current signs that reflect this (images attached to assist POPLA)

- show that additional signs were there to warn people familiar with the car park, about a new requirement to input a VRN

- show that there even was any keypad in the gym, because there wasn't at that time and the enforcement started before the keypad was there (POPLA should not also, the absence of a picture of the 'keypad' in situ at the gym, in the evidence pack, and draw the obvious conclusion).

This one might be still lost at POPLA stage but is defendable in small claims and not a risk to your friend's credit rating or wealth. No huge costs, and it sounds like they have a case but failed to put it properly to POPLA.

kryptonite786

horrified to see the PPC has put into their evidence pack the OLD photos of signs in March

The gym has been operating for over 2 years and I can pretty much guarantee the signs 'timestamped' 01/03/18 by PE is doctored with an incorrect timestamp, is there anything I can put forward in regards to this?

Thanks for all your help

Coupon-mad

Not for this POPLA appeal, no.

kryptonite786

Just came back from the car park and have realised the signs they have used in their evidence pack are from the residents floor, however the gym parking is on a separate floor. Furthermore, the signage plan shows basement floor 1 however, there is more than 1 floor.

Is that a point to make in the rebuttal?

System

I'd write to PE and point out their "mistake" in the bundle they have supplied to POPLA. PE tend to use a POPLA win as a rubber stamp for any claim they make so it would be useful to call them out as soon as you can. Invite them to withdraw their POPLA case so as not to "compromise their standing" with their inadvertent error.

They may do the usual childish response but it will be something up your sleeve for later. Get proof you sent it.

Edit: PE may think they can be casual with POPLA since they have paid for it. Courts are a different kettle.

Coupon-mad

Indeed but email PE, never a letter in the post (put the PCN xxxxxx/xxxxxx in the subject line):

info@parkingeye.co.uk

and if you lose at POPLA, then hold your nerve. When PE send a Letter before Claim, email the other team:

enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk

and point out the POPLA evidence pack was either negligently or deliberately wrong.

kryptonite786 wrote: »

Just came back from the car park and have realised the signs they have used in their evidence pack are from the residents floor, however the gym parking is on a separate floor. Furthermore, the signage plan shows basement floor 1 however, there is more than 1 floor.

Is that a point to make in the rebuttal?

Yes! Telling POPLA that the car was not in the residents basement car park, and that the Gym car park has completely different signage and terms, and that PE have got the location and signage terms completely wrong in their evidence pack.

kryptonite786

Ive just drafted up the rebuttal to Parking 'Lies' evidence pack, I appreciate your comments if possible and thank you for all your guidance thus far.

Address



POPLA Reference Number:
PCN Ref:


Dear Sir/Madam,

I would like to make the following representations on the evidence received from Parking Eye. Please ensure this is put in front of the assessor;

a) The time permitted for Pure Gym members is 2.5 hours as stated in the evidence pack ‘Time in Car Park’ (Section B, page 5) the time shows “1hr 32mins and 28seconds” which is within the time frame endorsed.

b) The entrance date/time logged by the ANPR system detailed in the evidence pack ‘Date/Time In’ (Section B, page 5) clearly registers with the evidence provided by myself in the initial appeal, also shown in the evidence pack (Section E, page 18) i.e. the entrance time into the car park marries up with the entrance time into Pure Gym as detailed in the journal evidence provided by the gym.

c) I would like to clarify I am not adding new appeal points however, I am horrified to see major flaws with the signage provided in the evidence pack (Section F, page 26-36) as follows:

I. The signage plan indicates an entrance/exit sign exists however this is non-existent.
II. More importantly, this is a multi-story car park however, the signage plan indicates a single floor (Basement Level -1) as the entire car park, this floor is for residents only. The vehicle was parked on (Basement Level -2), this is the floor dedicated to Pure Gym members and as such has completely different signage and terms. Therefore, the PPC in question has got the location and signage completely wrong in their evidence pack. I have provided images date/time stamped where appropriate below to highlight the correct signage.


[Images]


III. The images of the signage provided by the PPC date stamped on ‘01/03/2018’ reflect old evidence as the PCN was issued after this date. Therefore, they do not reflect the current signage currently in place. They have also not shown images of the signs, which are unlit, in the dark as it was for the driver.

Coupon-mad

I don't think you need III at all, because you've already said the signs are from the wrong floor of the multi storey, so they are not even 'old evidence'.

Here, I would suggest:

Therefore, the [STRIKE]PPC in question[/STRIKE] operator has got the location and signage completely wrong in their evidence pack. I have provided images date/time stamped where appropriate below to highlight the correct signage located at the Gym parking floor of this multi-storey car park.

I remind POPLA that Mr Gallagher, the Lead Adjudicator, has said in a previous ParkingEye case, that where an appellant is proving a point made in the original appeal about signage, by supplying final images in direct response to false signage evidence in the evidence pack, the Assessor must consider all photos that prove the evidence pack to be false, and cannot dismiss the images attached to the final comments because in this specific situation, the true signage pictures are not new evidence.

[Images]