Meadowhall Car Park

Coupon-mad

Good, so why the question marks, you know what to do.

CossieA

I have commented on the parking operators evidence by saying that the licence agreement they sent did not relate to the site of the shopping centre it was a site with a different name, address and post code and pointed out that the parking terms in the agreement were different to those on the signs. The signs did not say parking wholly in a parking bay just parking in designated parking areas and I was parked in designated parking areas causing no obstruction. they said in their evidence that i had an affixed PCN on my vehicle but i didn't just a letter in the post so pointed this. what are the chances of success ?

Redx

Nobody can give you the answer to that question

The vagaries of popla are well known and we have seen assessors make mistakes or not understood the complexities

Anyone that gives you the odds has more front than Paddy power

RobinofLoxley

CossieA wrote: »

It was parked in a bay but on/over white lines of bay - no hatchings and it doesn't say in their signs you need to park wholly inside a bay or not parking over white line so I was parked in a designated parking area

If MB don't say anything about being parked on or over the white lines in their evidence pack then I don't think you need to mention it at all. It's irrelevant and like you are just admitting you were in the wrong.

As far as you were concerned you were parked correctly and it's up to them to show why you weren't.

If their reason for issuing the PCN was "not parked in a designated area' and for "causing an obstruction" they need to prove it.

Do their photos they use in their evidence show this? This is what you need to rubbish.

CossieA

Hi no as I was parked in a space albeit over the line

RobinofLoxley

So what have they put in their evidence to show that the vehicle was either causing an obstruction or not parked in a designated parking area?

CossieA

Just not in a designated parking area and causing an obstruction

Le_Kirk

RobinofLoxley wrote: »

So what have they put in their evidence to show that the vehicle was either causing an obstruction or not parked in a designated parking area?

CossieA wrote: »

Just not in a designated parking area and causing an obstruction

But that is not EVIDENCE that is just a statement of (unproven) fact.

CossieA

Received an affixed parking charge at *********** for not being parked in a designated parking area and causing an obstruction. As can be seen by the patrol officer’s photographs, vehicle was not parked in a designated parking area and was causing an obstruction. We can confirm that this breached the site rules. This is a breach of the clearly displayed site rules which state, “This car park is private land and is for the use of both Meadowhall customers and off-duty staff members whilst using the shopping centre only. Vehicles must park in designated parking areas and must not cause an obstruction, Vehicles must not park on double yellow lines, footways, access roads or hatched areas”. As such ******* vehicle received a parking charge.

Basically I was parked in a parking bay just on/over the white lines

RobinofLoxley

So you should firmly rebut this to POPLA, point out to the assessor that the photos provided as evidence by MB do not in any way show or prove that the vehicle was 'not parked in a designated area and causing an obstruction' as they claim.

As I said in a previous post you shouldn't mention at all that the vehicle was parked on the white line of a bay. MB don't in their evidence, it's like you are admitting to being at fault in some way.