Parkingeye Lido Margate POPLA appeal

Castle

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.

According to Companies House, Stour Side Investments Ltd, (Co Number 08589287), didn't own any land at 30th June 2017:-
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08589287

Edna_Basher

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

No, don't mention this yet - you need to wait until after ParkingEye have submitted their evidence. If they are still including this outdated witness statement you should respond at the final stage of the process (i.e. when ParkingEye have no further opportunity to add evidence). You can also pick up on Castle's point that according to their most recent accounts, Stour Side Investments Limited don't even own any land. At this stage, just include a generic point that you do not believe that ParkingEye had the authority of the landowner.

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'd leave non-compliance with POFA in - specifically to highlight that "Lido (1)" or "Lido (2)" (as the case may be) does not adequately specify the relevant land.

Castle

Further research would suggest that the car park at "Lido 2" is actually being operated by the Administrators of Stour Side Developments Ltd based on paragraph 3.5 of the latest Administrators' progress report:-
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/03449710/filing-history

Edna_Basher

Excellent research, Castle.

This probably explains why ParkingEye had resorted to including a very out-of-date witness statement in their evidence pack - I don't suppose that signing a new witness statement for ParkingEye would have been very high on the administrators' list of priorities.

Modyfi

Right, made some more of suggested adjustments to said appeal.

- Edited non compliance with Pofa slightly and also added in section involving lido 1 and 2
- Added section 3 summary note that ParkingEye didn't have the authority of the landowner.
- Added two enhanced photos so floor can be seen (if only there was lighting) nearer end of document along side other evidence and a statement below it.


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.
Hopefully there isn't something I have missed? First section of the appeal states that payment was made in full and have also followed up on all points coupon-mad raised.

Can someone confirm for me that the latest changes on shared document have updated? Just want to make sure its still accessable.

I know Thanet fairly well as always have and still currently live here. All goes through then I will be contacting a local MP and will also contact local papers.

MistyZ

Hi, sorry if I worried you by referring back to Coupon-mad's advice, I see you have followed it in your appeal.

One bit that I'm not so sure of is:

'This appeal would like to specifically highlight subsection (b) as the received NTK was delivered by post. Furthermore, paragraph 9 (5) defines a relevant period as “..the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended’’'

I thought the first NTK actually did arrive within the 14 day period? And there's nothing wrong with it arriving by post.

However I realise that the most important sections are likely to be the landowner authority and signage which you've pretty much got covered. I really hope you win this, good luck.

Modyfi

No that's quite alright, I appreciate all the help and just wanted to make sure.

Ahh ill remove that part of the section later, must of got confused when first putting the document together.

So do you reckon once witness statement is done this is read to send off?

MistyZ

One small point, there's this phrase:

'the driver that caused a parking charge to arise'.

Yet the driver did not cause the parking charge to arise, P.E. did! So I'd just write 'the driver.'

And another one for luck .... if you're going to show the dire state of the car park, why not get a photo of the potholes in daylight? Then show that first, labelled 'daylight image - unsafe surface' and then the dark one as it does illustrate how difficult it is even to see the hazardous areas after dark as well as further illustrating the lack of lighting.

Otherwise I guess it's good to go. I reckon you've done a good job.

Modyfi

Hi all

Seems that I'm back again!

So finally after admitting my appeal to popla, parking Eye have finally sent evidence over.

Must say I love that they are allowed to take a month yet I have to respond within 7 days.

Here is their response :

Time In Car Park 3 hours 32 minutes 15 seconds
Time Paid For 2 hours 0 minutes 0 seconds
Payment Options Machine/’PayByPhone
Number of Paid Parking
Machines
2
History
23/02/2019 Date of event
System check/manual check identified breach of terms and conditions, prior to DVLA request
04/03/2019 Request queued to DVLA for keeper details
05/03/2019 DVLA response received - Success
05/03/2019 Parking Charge Letter Issued - Letter1 - Ltr01-217
14/03/2019 Parking Charge Letter Issued - Letter2 - Ltr02-217
18/03/2019
21/03/2019
Letter Issued - Website Appeal Response
Website appeal processed, please see section E
21/03/2019 Adhoc Letter Issued - Authority Letter
Check undertaken to locate vehicle registration on paid parking system
(Evidence G)
01/04/2019 Letter Issued - Unsuccessful POPLA PP Insufficient 3rd Party (W/FAQ)
Rules and Conditions
This site is a Paid Parking car park as clearly stated on the signage (enclosed). We have included a signage plan
showing that there are signs situated at the entrance, exit and throughout the car park displaying the terms and
conditions of the site.
The facility to pay by phone is also available at this site on the provision of the full, correct vehicle registration
and payment card details.
Evidence G
System generated print out showing that insufficient time was purchased on the date of the event.
Please find enclosed a letter of authority (LOA) signed on behalf of the landowner showing that on the date of
the parking event ParkingEye had authority to issue and pursue a Parking Charge to this vehicle.
Authority
ParkingEye can confirm that the above site is on private land, is not council owned and that we have written
authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices at this site from the landowner (or landowner’s agent).
It must also be noted that any person who makes a contract in his own name without disclosing the existence
of a principal, or who, though disclosing the fact that he is acting as an agent on behalf of a principal, renders
himself personally liable on the contract, is entitled to enforce it against the other contracting party. (Fairlie v
Fenton (1870) LR 5 Exch 169). It follows that a lawful contract between ParkingEye and the motorist will be
enforceable by ParkingEye as a party to that contract

Grace Period
ParkingEye operates a minimum grace period of ten minutes or more on all sites which gives the motorist time
to enter a car park, park, and establish whether, or not, they wish to be bound by the terms and conditions of
parking.
A grace period of 10 minutes or more is in place at this site which is fully compliant with clauses 13.2 and 30.2
of BPA code of practice which states ‘If the parking location is one where parking is normally permitted, you
must allow the driver a reasonable grace period in addition to the parking event before enforcement action is
taken. In such instances the grace period must be a minimum of 10 minute’.
Please note that the Letter of Authority provided to demonstrate ParkingEye’s authority to operate at this site
and issue Parking Charges is effective from 02/06/2016 as the date the Letter of Authority was signed. It should
also be noted that it is widely accepted as a standard industry practice and in the County Court that the date of
signature of any such agreements is the effective date from which the agreement commences and the
authority is given.
ParkingEye ensures that all its signage is clear, ample, and in keeping with the British Parking Association (BPA)
regulations.
The signage at this site demonstrates adequate colour contrast between the text and the backgrounds advised
in the BPA Code of Practice, you will note the colour contrast at this site is black text on white background.
As the images show, the vehicle had its headlights on. This would have rendered the many signs in the car park
visible. (Please see Section F).
Please be advised the date of the Parking Event was 23/02/2019 and the Parking Charge Notice was issued on
05/03/2019, therefore we believe that we have issued the Parking Charge Notice in accordance with Paragraph
9 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (2012).
Postage is at the behest of the postal service and therefore any delays are outside of ParkingEye’s control.





They have also sent over many images from 2016 of the signs shown in daylight. Also included is a map of said car park showing sign locations (two of which are said to be fitted to existing lighting column not that there was any light. The last two bits of evidence are a white list look up for the registration of the vehicle and as castle had researched, a letter of written authority from P. Eley which is dated 2016 and also isn't even signed. The only text on it says I confirm parking Eye Ltd have the above authority and then P. Eley written in text.

My question is how and what do I respond with?

I apologise for the long post

KeithP

Modyfi wrote: »

My question is how and what do I respond with?

Read that part of post #3 of the NEWBIES thread following the heading:

AFTER SUBMITTING YOUR POPLA APPEAL:

Note that your comments on their evidence need to be less than 2000 characters to fit in PoPLA's portal.