Car Hire popla

nigelbb

Dane19 wrote: »

So far all the appeals iv read regarding lease cars have won using the argument of non compliance of Notice to Hirer, the operator did not send them nor submitted them as evidence, but in my case they hav submitted these documents in the evidence pack

So my question is where do I stand in this scenario?

Im drafting a rebuttal I have 3 days left so an advise please?

As far as I can see these documents have only been produced in evidence to POPLA however to comply with POFA they should have been sent with the NTH. The OP makes no mention of receiving the requisite documents with the NTH.

Coupon-mad

Has the PPC lied and said they were enclosed with the NTH?

You need to confirm that did not happen and you have never seen those documents produced by this parking firm before.

MistyZ

Does anyone have a view about asking the hire company when P.E. requested the documents?

Dane19

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Has the PPC lied and said they were enclosed with the NTH?

You need to confirm that did not happen and you have never seen those documents produced by this parking firm before.

On the first page of he evidence pack they have a statement saying
I confirm that the Appellant has been sent copies of all evidence in accordance with current POPLA requirements
Now I don’t know if this means they have sent it now or before, besides this they haven’t specifically mentioned they enclosed it with NTH. Am I making sense ?

nigelbb

Dane19 wrote: »

On the first page of he evidence pack they have a statement saying
I confirm that the Appellant has been sent copies of all evidence in accordance with current POPLA requirements
Now I don’t know if this means they have sent it now or before, besides this they haven’t specifically mentioned they enclosed it with NTH. Am I making sense ?

Not really. Did they send the documents with the NTH?

Dane19

nigelbb wrote: »

Not really. Did they send the documents with the NTH?

Nop they didn't.

Dane19

I have drafted my rebuttal, any additions or corrections will be much appreciated, i still have 77 letters

I refer back to point (1) of my appeal.

ParkingEye, in their capacity as Operator did not provide me with any copies of the relevant documents mentioned in POFA 2012 schedule 4 Paragraph 13 (2),by merely presenting them in the evidence pack does not demonstrate that it was provided.
Please refer to the evidence submitted by ParkingEye in section B, they have listed a history of letters issued but nowhere is there any reference to these documents.
So for the reason of Non compliance of paragraph 13 & 14 it must also follow that i cannot be held liable.

Signs in the car park fail to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach. For example in my appeal FIG1 (entrance sign) you will see the sign is placed on the left were the road is bending to the right which makes it difficult for the driver to notice let alone be read. It fails to comply with BPA Section 18, paragraph 2.

ParkingEye has failed to show that full terms can be read at the time of parking or leaving the vehicle in accordance with BPA Section 18, paragraph 3. They are high up poles with small letterings and wordings clustered together, the terms and conditions are not readable at eye level. A stool and magnifying glass is required to be able to read the terms. Even if you magnify the images submitted the small print at the bottom is still not illegible.

Parkingeye evidence images 0880,0881,0882,0883 prove this and also show the lack of signs contrary to their claim. So in conclusion how can the driver have agreed to a contract which could not have been read in the first place.

ParkingEye have failed to provide a contract with the land owner instead they have provided a witness statement. There is no a start or end date and it is difficult to identify who the signatory is therefore cannot be used as evidence.
Taking the above into consideration i respectfully request that my appeal should be granted

MistyZ

Dane19 wrote: »

I have drafted my rebuttal, any additions or corrections will be much appreciated, i still have 77 letters

I refer back to point (1) of my appeal.

P.E., in their capacity as Operator did not provide me with any copies of the relevant documents mentioned in POFA 2012 schedule 4 Paragraph 13 (2)[STRIKE],by[/STRIKE] merely presenting them in the evidence pack does not demonstrate that[STRIKE] it[/STRIKE] they were provided.
Please refer to the evidence submitted by P.E. in section B, they have listed a history of letters issued but nowhere is there any reference to these documents.
So for the reason of non-compliance with POFA para.14 it must also follow that [STRIKE]i[/STRIKE] I cannot be held liable.

Signs in the car park fail to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach. For example in my appeal FIG1 (entrance sign) you will see the sign is placed on the left were the road is bending to the right which makes it difficult for the driver to notice let alone be read. It fails to comply with BPA Section 18, paragraph 2.

ParkingEye has failed to show that full terms can be read at the time of parking or leaving the vehicle in accordance with BPA Section 18, paragraph 3. They are high up poles with small letterings and wordings clustered together, the terms and conditions are not readable at eye level. A stool and magnifying glass is required to be able to read the terms. Even if you magnify the images submitted the small print at the bottom is still not [STRIKE]illegible.[/STRIKE] legible.

Parkingeye evidence images 0880,0881,0882,0883 prove this and also show the lack of signs contrary to their claim. So in conclusion how can the driver have agreed to a contract which could not have been read in the first place.

ParkingEye have failed to provide a contract with the land owner instead they have provided a witness statement. There is no a start or end date and it is difficult to identify who the signatory is therefore cannot be used as evidence.


Taking the above into consideration I respectfully request that my appeal should be granted

Hi, I made some grammatical / spelling changes and suggestions are in red. It's particularly important in the context to use the word 'legible' rather than 'illegible'!!

You can use 'P.E.' to save characters and perhaps add to your signage section? The bit I've put in italics could be improved I think.

I would imagine the killer point, if there is going to be one, is that about the lack of reference to the hire docs in the history of letters issued.

Dane19

MistyZ wrote: »

Hi, I made some grammatical / spelling changes and suggestions are in red. It's particularly important in the context to use the word 'legible' rather than 'illegible'!!

You can use 'P.E.' to save characters and perhaps add to your signage section? The bit I've put in italics could be improved I think.

I would imagine the killer point, if there is going to be one, is that about the lack of reference to the hire docs in the history of letters issued.

Thanks Misty grammar was always my weak point,

MistyZ

Good luck, I'm probably not the only person who is really rooting for you. I'm just disgusted to hear that P.E. have lied.

I got a 'like' from Coupon_mad re. asking the hire company when they sent the docs to P.E. and think I'll interpret that as 'worth a punt'. If you could get an answer from them tomorrow - even if over the phone - and quote any helpful reply in your rebuttal, that might add even more weight to your argument.