ParkingEye POPLA Hallsville Quarter, London

buppa

Hi guys,

Updated appeal link:
/s/qsasw42f1xdipqt/Parking_update.pdf?dl=0

Initial appeal link (with all photos):
/s/3s0noeqkx51tdex/Parking1.pdf?dl=0

Again problem with links and new user. Both appleals on dropbox

So I have modified my appeal.
1. I removed the photos I was asked by you in previous posts.
2. I modified the text on the first page to reflect the removal of the photos, that is removed any information about the sign at the entrance and the signs on the posts.
3. After the photos I have copied in and modified the text of appeal from
showpost.php?p=71285691&postcount=2341
Changes are marked in yellow.

To be honest as I was asked to removed all of the photos with the signs, I am a bit confused about the text of the first part
1. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces
I hope that my modification makes the above mentioned appeal more universal. As there was no visible signs.


My main point I wanted to make is the confusion with the council parking and no visible sign at the entrance to the parking. Some of you sound like it's totally irrelevant.

Could you please tell me if I can send the modified appeal or should I add or remove something, maybe rephrase something.

So my questions is: Is my appeal ok to be sent or not?

Thank you

buppa

Hi,

I would like to send the appeal the latest tomorrow.
Any more suggestions?

Thank you

KeithP

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qsasw42f1xdipqt/Parking_update.pdf?dl=0

Just a few obvious points:

Photo 9 - the text says " The is no information that the parking is a private parking on the payment machine", but the picture shows a ParkingEye legend on the machine.

Photo 10 - as above but even more obvious as the pic is a close-up.

Doesn't the fact that you have shown to PoPLA at least two pictures of a payment machine with a tariff on it, indicate that the driver was expected to pay?

The last sentence on page 20 seems to imply that there is more to follow, but there isn't.

buppa

Thanks.
How does a ParkingEye logo indicates that it's a private parking?
It could easily be taken as a payment operative/system just like Ringgo.
If someone knows that ParkingEye or other companies operates only private parking than yes, but for driver without this kind of experience and knowledge, I don't think so.

Again, at the entrance to Wouldham road there is a council sign, just next to an other parking sign, there is no visible sign at the entrance and there are black panels on the right side of the road creating more confusion. Isn't it the valid point?

Should I remove the photos 9 and 10?

You have seen all of the photos and you know my situation. What is the best way to appeal my case?

I changed the last sentence.

Thank you

buppa

Hi,

Any chance to get a reply from someone?

Thank you

buppa

Hi,

So today I received a Letter before county court claim directly from ParkingEye - not a solicitor.

I read the newbies thread again (the part about LBC) and I assume that what my reply at the moment can be modified reply as in: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=72358831#post72358831

As I mentioned, I believed that it was a public parking with no fees at the time when the parking took place as a parking signs were not clearly displayed.
Photos of the parking area with explanation can be found in the first draft in the original thread.

One thing to mention is that I wasn't able to see the evidence when appealing at POPLA as I missed the e-mail with reply from POPLA to comment on the evidence withing 7 days. When I tried to log in after 9 days there was a system error. The system error still existed when I got an e-mail from POPLA asking me to log in and see their decision. When I mentioned the issue to them, they sent the decision directly in an e-mail (attached).

If you have any questions please ask me - as the whole situation has been explained in the original thread.

Also, if ParkingEye would not accept my first (and second reply) and would take me to court, is it very likely that the court would dismiss the case or at least I would pay less than the asked £100? If I had to turn up in court, take a day off work and then loose the case, then I am not sure, if it's worth the effort.

buppa

Hi again,

I read a few more topics and tried to write my own reply to the claim, but TBH I do not know how to tackle it. It seems as non of the previously used defences apply to my case. I mean, I could try to repeat what I already wrote in POPLA appeal, but probably it will not work.

Below I am attaching links to POPLA's decision, reply to my complaint of not being able to see the evidence and the letter before county court claim.

POPLA Decision: https://www.dropbox.com/s/97fzowphd3ilvw3/Popla_decision.pdf?dl=0

POPLA's reply to my complaint: https://www.dropbox.com/s/95wn5cfjbfxo189/Replay%20to%20complaint%20POPLA.pdf?dl=0

Letter before county court claim: https://www.dropbox.com/s/g7q25cmw82rytol/LBC.pdf?dl=0

Coupon-mad

I read the newbies thread again (the part about LBC) and I assume that what my reply at the moment can be modified reply as in: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=72358831#post72358831

No that is 18 months old and talks about a pre-action protocol that is over a year old and PE do comply with it.

If appearing at a hearing is not cost effective and you have little in the way of defence, then I suggest emailing the Enforcement Team:

enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk

and make an offer of say, £40 (marked without prejudice, save as to costs) saying this is not an admission of liability, but an attempt to resolve the dispute without litigation - and see what they come back with.

buppa

Thanks. Maybe I will offer them to pay just for the parking fee.
Still, if the signs were more visible and not confusing with the public parking signs, I would have never parked there.

How does e-mailing the enforcement team correspond to the official reply to the BCL?

I found in a different topic regarding Civil Enforcement LTD that:

KeithP wrote: »

There have been many CEL claims recently and every singly one on here that has submitted a half decent defence has found the case discontinued before any hearing.

Do you think they could drop the case before court hearing?
Also if it came to hearing, what do you think my chances are?

I am just considering options here. Maybe the best option is to make an offer or to pay, but maybe not.

Is there any sort of general defence I could you as:

The_Deep wrote: »

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week, hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. It has even been suggested that some of these companies have links with organised ccrime.

With a fair wind they will be out of business by early in the New Year.

The_Deep

How does a ParkingEye logo indicates that it's a private parking?

Because PE is a private parking company. You need to get a grip on this.