ParkingEye POPLA Appeal advice

Goodlucksir

Hello everyone,

A little bit of context, driver parked at a car park for an hour to use the gym next door. Another well known business owns this car park. Driver thought the car park was free for the gym as well. Received parking charge through the post days later (not a 'golden ticket'). Appealed to PE using the template on the Newbies page, as the registered keeper. PE has rejected this appeal and now have a POPLA code.

I would like some advice on what grounds I should use to appeal. Below are my current ones using the Newbies thread and other threads that are relevant to my case.

1. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself
2. 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. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
4. No photo evidence of the vehicle in contravention of terms

Any advice will be appreciated.

Coupon-mad

Yes to those appeal ideas, although #2 isn't needed, if PE have used a POFA PCN.

I would be taking photos to prove it is not clear that the signs offering (presumably) free parking, do not include the adjacent Gym that appears to be within the same site boundary...

Not just using templates. I think you need to show POPLA how you saw it.

Goodlucksir

I know that there is only one sign at the entrance of the car park that mentions 'Free parking' in large sized font but 'for XXXX customers only' underneath in fairly small sized font. The main sign with the terms was in the middle of the car park.

What are my chances winning at POPLA with pictures of that 'free parking' sign as my main point of the argument

Redx

nobody can tell you "the chances of winning at popla" , anyone who does is being foolish

this Ombudsman Service make some strange decisions and the fact that it is a "free car park" is rarely relevant

POPLA will rules on legal technicalities only , they wont care about mitigation or any "story"

if you can prove that PE failed on a technicality, you win, if you cant, you lose, and we dont have all the facts so nobody can tell you the answer

BEAVIS thought he would win, as did we , he failed, 3 times , in 3 different courts

if PE have all their ducks in a row, you will lose, its that simple


if you can prove that the signage was inadequate or misleading, then you may win, especially if it went before a judge