ParkingEye Warrington Central

KeithP

Here is your link:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1o0PpCRH4fmRW4A-Vy6wByA_EQzPpNklI/view

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75722992#Comment_75722992

Tell me when it's gone!

mjm87

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Tell me when it's gone!

Not sure I understand, the only infinitive in that paragraph is "to appeal" and it isn't split?

KeithP

There's two in that first paragraph:

I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter...

I contend that I, as the keeper, am not liable...

mjm87

Ah, they're appositive commas. A split infinitive is breaking up a "to verb" phrase with another word, like saying "to boldly go" instead of "to go boldly". At any rate, grammatical pedantry is off topic! :-) I can take it out if it makes things clearer.

Coupon-mad

Is it?

I thought to spilt the I from the am is a split infinitive, but whatever it is it is horrible and I cannot ever read that intro until it is removed!

That example needs removing from the NEWBIES thread (one day, when I have time...).

mjm87

*Edit: I tidied up some of the wording*

OK, removed. New link is hxxps://drive.google.com/file/d/1yYY7diL17zpFe-fgS0rcVorKchc5pn_e/view?usp=sharing

mjm87

I've made some further changes having found a handy video on another thread of video footage of the car park in darkness, highlighting how none of the signage is visible. So, the latest draft is hxxps://docs.google.com/document/d/13qdACM42zhnib_fwD9OPKndsCHK7qXA2SVZ82jF2xFI/edit?usp=sharing

All comments welcome!

Coupon-mad

Remove #4 as POPLA see the words no GPEOL and hit the 'no' button:

4. No genuine pre-estimate of loss (ParkingEye Vs Beavis does not apply)
A well-known case, ParkingEye Vs Beavis, has meant that parking companies can charge amounts that do not represent loss, and instead are penalties. However, the Beavis case was based on the facts of that particular case – an overstay in a free car park. In the case of ParkingEye Vs Cargius it was held that the Beavis case did not apply since parking was paid for rather than free for a limited period. The judge distinguished it by reasoning that in Beavis the charge was justifiable as it was their only income, whereas in a paid car park, only the hourly charge is being lost; anything above that is clearly a penalty. With this in mind the actual loss incurred, and therefore maximum that can be reclaimed, by ParkingEye is the fee for the period of parking between 06:49am and 17:10pm - £3.30.

Are you going to upload the video as well as your PDF appeal? I would.

Don't just give POPLA a link or they will not follow it. Upload the video too.

mjm87

Done, and submitted. The video wouldn't upload to their website (?!) so I made a note that their website wouldn't allow the video to upload on the summary box and added the link in there and all the other boxes you get to fill in for supporting evidence. I also heard back this morning (unfortunately after I submitted) from a chap who had the exact same thing happen to him in the exact same car park and he won his appeal on the grounds of unclear signage. When ParkingEye come back with their usual "our signs comply with the BPA" I'll counter with that appeal as I've now got the POPLA code for it.