Parkingeye Lido Margate POPLA appeal

MistyZ

Modyfi wrote: »

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

My first impression is that they seem to have trouble evidencing landowner authority. And as you say, Castle's link shows that Paul Eley's directorship was terminated in June 2017.

Incidentally, Post 3439 on the POPLA thread (although re. a different PPC) shows an assessor allowing an appeal on the basis that a landowner contract had no expiry date ...

I think you need to take a really good look at everything they say about landowner authority, noting everything that sounds fishy in light of the discussion here so far. You can work on making your comments on their evidence succinct after that.

I'm sure you can contest their signage evidence quite easily too. For a start, P.E. have stated that two of their signs were fitted to lighting columns, but as you explained in your appeal, they were NOT illuminated in any way.

Modyfi

Sorry for the delay, life getting in the way as always.

I have put together a draft for the evidence rebuttal. I tried to keep it as concise as I possibly could given the character limit. Wasnt exactly sure how to respond in regards to PE just attaching a vehicle look up stating paid time was only 2 hours. Sorry for the long post again. Any feedback is greatly appreciated.

Dear POPLA Assessor,
I will respond to ParkingEyes rebuttal exactly as they have laid out

1. System generated print out showing that insufficient time was purchased on the date of the event
2. 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).
3. This site is a Paid Parking car park as clearly stated on the signage (enclosed). ParkingEye ensures that all its signage is clear, ample, and in keeping with the British Parking Association (BPA) regulations. 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).


Response

1. The System generated print out only states the allotted time of the vehicle registration. This in itself does not show or state the input of funds into the machine. As previously stated the correct amount was paid yet ParkingEye are unable to provide proof that the machine was not 30p up after that period.
2. Parking Eye state “Please note that the Letter of Authority provided to demonstrate Parking Eye’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”.

This is not the case as it is simply a text input which can be easily forged as the evidence itself is an image rather than a document.
The name itself of the director is redacted which gives no indication that the correct persons are on the image.
The supposed Letter of authority was dates as 02/06/2016 which makes it almost three years old as well as no expiry date being listed.
The name of the director/landowner when the image was made on 02/06/2016 resigned on 03/10/16 therefore meaning they are no longer the landowner and Parking Eye does not have the authority.

3. I will break this response down into two sections.

1. The signage
The Signage is unclear and illegible at night as previously shown in the evidence uploaded during appeal. The Signage within the layout plan are shown as on a lighting post which is not the case. This is proven with Parking Eyes own picture (image 4) which shows the two signs as on the plan but with no lighting equipment fitted above.
It should also be seen that the arguement in case is that there is no lighting at all within this land yet Parking Eyes evidence shows the signage in daytime


2. The vehicle and its headlights being able to “render the many signs in the car park visible”.
The Signs are not within close proximity to the vehicle. There is no distance marker on the layout plan to show the distance of each supposedly visible sign. Lights on vehicle are standard bulb and therefore could not reach said distance or around corners as incorrectly stated. Mot standard for headlight adjustment means that the beam must be between 0.5% and 2.75% so with all signs above car height, headlight beam will not of been able to reach.


It should also be noted that Parking Eye state in their invalid LOA that the signage will be as per outlined in the user manual and the site survey. None of this is shown but even still following their signage layout plan, they have deviated from their agreement. This is also linked to their statement on the LOA that they will “install and maintain all parking eye signage on site” referring to previous image showing no lighting even attached to a supposed lighting column.

Lastly is an issue not raised by Parking Eye but enforces another of my previous appeals arguments.

The Notice to keeper must—
specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;

Evidence supplied by Parking Eye for signage (image 3) shows the ticket machine of the other car park. If Parking Eye are unable to show correct evidence of which car park, how can they state which land is correct. Also how can Parking Eye be sure its following BPA code of practice if they themselves are unsure which car park.

Castle

Who do PE say is the landowner?

MistyZ

I'm making that 3,348 characters without counting the spaces .... well over 4,000 with spaces.

You can cut it down considerably with bullet points, use of P.E. instead of Parking Eye, leaving out unnecessary words etc.

You can be clear without 'proper' sentences e.g.:

- 'Letter of Authority' dated 02/06/16 i.e. 3 years old. NO expiry date.

I think POPLA appeals don't allow italics & possibly not bold text either, but emphasising key points can aid brevity, so use capitals if necessary.

Modyfi

OK ill work on shorting it down now

On the image PE provided of the LOA under the signature section it states signature of the landowner (landowners duty authorised agent)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RgtvymGT7nIHb4vojuVSvST8GKTa235O/view?usp=sharing

Castle

Modyfi wrote: »

OK ill work on shorting it down now

On the image PE provided of the LOA under the signature section it states signature of the landowner (landowners duty authorised agent)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RgtvymGT7nIHb4vojuVSvST8GKTa235O/view?usp=sharing

Lido 2 is owned by Stour Side Developments Ltd, (which is now in administration). The Administrators have confirmed that PE are operating the car park on behalf of them.
(See 12th September 2017 Statement of Administrator's proposal-section 6):-

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/03449710/filing-history

Modyfi

Does that make a difference to my argument? Do I need to word anything differently?

Lido (1) is the land they are claiming on the ntk

MistyZ

Castle wrote: »

Lido 2 is owned by Stour Side Developments Ltd, (which is now in administration). The Administrators have confirmed that PE are operating the car park on behalf of them.
(See 12th September 2017 Statement of Administrator's proposal-section 6):-

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/03449710/filing-history

Lido 1 is listed in the same document.

I looked at your link Modifi. Why not write: 'The Letter of Authority' states that the (redacted) signature is Paul Eley's. P. Eley resigned as director in .....'

Finish that section with 'I therefore conclude that P.E. do not have authority to operate at this car park'

I really think you've got a damn good chance here with Landowner Authority and signage / lighting if you really hammer P.E.'s shaky 'evidence'.

Modyfi

Right I have finally managed to get the character count down to under 2000.

I never realised I had done that much more!

Does this make sense as it stands

Dear Assessor,
I will respond to P.E. rebuttal by each point

System generated print out showing that insufficient time was purchased
ParkingEye can confirm that the site is on private land and that we have written authority to operate at this site.
This site is a Paid Parking as clearly stated on the signage. As the images show, the vehicle had its headlights on. This would have rendered the many signs in the car park visible.

Response
Print out only states time of the vehicle. It does not show the amount. As stated the correct amount was paid yet P.E. did not provide proof that the machine was not 30p up after that period.

P.E state “Please note that the Letter of Authority provided to demonstrate P.E’s authority to operate at this site is effective from 02/06/2016 as the date the Letter of Authority was signed”.

Not signed just text. Easily forged as image not document.
Director name redacted.
Letter of Authority dated 02/06/16. 3 years old. No expiry date.
Director on Letter resigned on 03/10/16. I conclude P.E. do not have authority to operate at this car park.

Signage is illegible at night as shown previous. The SIgn Layout plan shows two on a lighting post which is false. This is proven with P.E own image (image 4) which shows the two signs with no lighting equipment fitted. P.E evidence shows daytime signage.

The Signs are not within proximity to the vehicle and there are no distances on the plan. Lights on vehicle could not reach as stated. Mot standard for headlight adjustment is between 0.5% and 2.75% drop so with all signs above car height, headlight beam will not reach.

Lastly is an issue not raised by P.E but enforces previous appeals argument.
The Notice to keeper must:
specify the relevant land on which it was parked which the notice relates;
Evidence supplied by P.E for signage (image 3) shows the ticket machine of the other car park. If P.E show incorrect evidence, how can they state which land is correct and be sure it follows BPA standard.

MistyZ

FWIW the most recent Progress Report (Castle's link) states that Paul Eley was 'Director of the company from 11 August 2014 to 14 June 2017'.

I would make this point even more clearly if possible. At the moment you've got the two sentences about the signature separated by the 'Easily forged' bit. How about:

Letter of Authority is dated 02/06/16 so is 3 years old. No expiry date. Signature is completely redacted. Text below signature states it is that of Paul Eley. Paul Eley resigned his directorship on 14th June '17. I conclude ... etc.'

Please double check P.Eley's resignation date to see if you agree with me.

Some words are worth repeating for emphasis even with the tight character count and italics or capitals will indeed help emphasise points as long as they're not over-used.

You can lose some more words, cut 'the' where possible e.g. from 'The Site Layout Plan', 'The Notice to Keeper'. I'd cut 'Dear Assessor' and go straight for a heading of

P.E.'s Evidence pack claims/states:
- insufficient time purchased
- that they have written authority to operate at Lido 1
- signs are clear & car headlights would illuminate signs


But number the points when you're really happy with the order. And then number each of your rebuttal points accordingly.

I think you might usefully head up your final point with a very firm:
P.E. HAVE NOT addressed my appeal point that NTK must specify the relevant land to which the notice relates. In fact their signage evidence (image 3) shows ticket machine for another car park - 'Lido 2'!'. (Then your point about this).