Parkingeye Lido Margate POPLA appeal

Modyfi

Oh my apologies

Fee was 80p for two hours, £1.50 for four

We paid £1.50 but their system shows £1.20

We were parked for 3 hours and 32 minutes

The_Deep

So they are claiming that you underpaid by £0.30. Read this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis

Coupon-mad

Remove your two photos of the signs with 'flash active and zoomed'.

Just leave all the dark photos only in your POPLA appeal.

You need to clearly state at the start that the driver who was not you, DID pay £1.50 which covered 4 hours parking, and the machine did not return any money.

Put P/Eye to strict proof that the machine was not 30p up after that period.

Next to your photo of the PDT machine, put a note that points out to POPLA that there is no sign next to it with £100 on it, so the driver could not have known about that fee, albeit they saw from the machine screen what the actual tariffs were (not from signage). State that the PDT machine screen DOES NOT mention £100 at all.

Include a signed & dated witness statement from any second person in the car (you/your wife as passenger?) that confirms they 'saw the driver put in £1.50 and know this as they helped to find the right coins and were an eye witness'.

Can you find by Googling, any newspaper articles about the same car park where people are talking about the same issue, having paid the right coins but receiving a penalty anyway? If so, include that too in the POPLA appeal document an not just as a link, as a screenshot of the entire article(s).

IMHO you might lose this at POPLA (unless POPLA find for you on the dark signage issue) but it's worth defending if P/Eye take it further, as it's your word against theirs about the 30p, and at court it would be their case to prove on the balance of probabilities.

The_Deep

IMHO you might lose this at POPLA (unless POPLA find for you on the dark signage issue)

I would very much hope not. This would mean that they are accepting the word of a well known scammer over a fine upstanding citizen.

Edna_Basher

Other than dark / unclear signage, there could be a couple of other reasons for POPLA to find in your favour.

• Non-compliance with Paragraph 9 (2) (a) of Schedule 4 of POFA (i.e. failure to specify the relevant land upon which the vehicle was parked); check ParkingEye's Notice to Keeper - does it simply refer to "Lido (1)" or "Lido (2)" without even stating the town or postcode for the car park?
• Landholder authority; as recently as 4 months ago ParkingEye's evidence packs for this site contained a witness statement on behalf of the landowner Stour Side Investments Limited which dated back to June 2016. The director named on this document is recorded with Companies House as having resigned in October 2016. If ParkingEye are still relying upon this document, you will have a strong argument that it provides no reliable evidence that ParkingEye still had the landowner's authority over two and a half years later.

Le_Kirk

In my confusion looking last night I assumed they were the same date but unfortunately first was sent on the 05/03/19 and the second a reminder letter sent 14/05/19. Date of the incident in question was 23/02/19.

Unless you are a Time Lord, this is not possible! Did you mean 14/03/19?

Edna_Basher

14/3/19 would make sense - ParkingEye issue their reminder notice 9 days after issuing the PCN.

MistyZ

Assuming the experienced regulars agree, sounds like you should major on signage, i.e. have it as your first POPLA section. And I still think it would be a good idea to add to it with your own carefully phrased but damning description of the difficulties it presents after dark. It is not fit for purpose on dark evenings, yet that is when it is busiest due to the facilities it serves. I have parked there and struggled to see my purse, let alone the coins in it.

Edna Basher's comments on the landowner authority are really interesting. With luck that will swing it for you, if the POPLA assessor doesn't understand that people should not be invited to agree to written contracts / feed coins into a machine in virtual pitch darkness.

Modyfi

Sorry for the delay , was a rather busy day !

- Two flash photos removed, only dark photos attached
- start statement changed to correct payment
- Note to popla added next to ticket machine image
- Added connection to witness statement in first argument yet to write it ( on my to do list)
- Was unable to find any information or articles regarding anyone with similar issues
- Added non compliance with stated location into section for paragraph 2

Hopefully hyperlink is stilll active and showing currently updated document

A couple of questions if i may:
- Is it worth me adding this into my document and if so how best to add it ?
Landholder authority; as recently as 4 months ago ParkingEye's evidence packs for this site contained a witness statement on behalf of the landowner Stour Side Investments Limited which dated back to June 2016. The director named on this document is recorded with Companies House as having resigned in October 2016. If ParkingEye are still relying upon this document, you will have a strong argument that it provides no reliable evidence that ParkingEye still had the landowner's authority over two and a half years later.
- Given my error for mistaking the dates and thinking the reminder was a golden ticket, do i need to remove the part of non compliance of pofa in regards to keeper liability?
- I have two other images. One showing poor state of flooring in car park (pothole city) and another showing that tickets only produce a purchase time and not an expiry time. Would these be of any use ?

MistyZ

Modyfi wrote: »

Landholder authority; as recently as 4 months ago ParkingEye's evidence packs for this site contained a witness statement on behalf of the landowner Stour Side Investments Limited which dated back to June 2016. The director named on this document is recorded with Companies House as having resigned in October 2016. If ParkingEye are still relying upon this document, you will have a strong argument that it provides no reliable evidence that ParkingEye still had the landowner's authority over two and a half years later.[/COLOR]

I'm in two minds about this .... might be best just to let them produce the document and then go in for the kill in your comments on their evidence. (If they fail to produce it that should also be a win for you).

I'd include the pothole photos, though would explain their relevance e.g. by pointing out that the car park serves venues which are visited in the evenings yet is unfit for this purpose as it is extremely poorly lit and indeed so badly maintained that it is hazardous after dark (refer to photos).

As there is no doubt in your minds that the full amount was paid, you do not want to suggest that the challenges of this car park led to under-payment, rather that no contract can be entered into in these circumstances. It's still really important to be clear that the full amount was paid and to include everything Coupon-mad advised in post 14 above.

Incidentally, don't know how well you know Thanet, but there are a lot of local rags of one sort & another, quite a few free ones that are popular with visitors. I'm sure at least one of them would be willing to air this sorry tale, it's about time.