Which template to use?

MistyZ

I've just read the signage section. Seems okay to me on the whole. However personally I'd leave out figure 9 - the angle of the photo and the emptiness of the car park there make the signs stand out more than they probably do usually. I'd still make the point about the only signs being placed in that area & being too small / high to read but I think I'd leave out the photo.

jugulator

MistyZ wrote: »

I've just read the signage section. Seems okay to me on the whole. However personally I'd leave out figure 9 - the angle of the photo and the emptiness of the car park there make the signs stand out more than they probably do usually. I'd still make the point about the only signs being placed in that area & being too small / high to read but I think I'd leave out the photo.

Thank you! Will do that and send it off..:beer:

jugulator

Hello,
I have received evidence from ParkingEye on POPLA. I have attached it here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/n1m9h8bbyl1b4st/poplaPE.pdf?dl=0

It is a 42 page document although most part is preset template apart from section B (pages 5 and 6) where they mention about the signage, landowner authority, grace period etc.

They have not addressed my arguments such as hidden entrance sign and lack of signage on one side of the car park. They put a stock picture taken a month before the incident in which branches are not fallen over the sign. There is a signage layout plan (page 38) in which they marked the signs. It is clear from that image that there are no signs on one of side of the car park. If driver gets in and decides to a park in a space on the right side, he will miss the signs which are all on the left side as the driver will be looking towards the space. (On a side note, this is exactly what happened!)

I am planning to use these points in my comments. Use their picture and comment on it and also they ignore the branch blocking the sign. Is there anything else I should be adding on comments? I would appreciate if someone could go through it and make any suggestions.

Thanks

jugulator

Also, I am guessing that I cannot upload anymore pictures and it just typing comments up to maximum 2000 words?

Fruitcake

jugulator wrote: »

Also, I am guessing that I cannot upload anymore pictures and it just typing comments up to maximum 2000 [STRIKE]words[/STRIKE]?

2000 characters at rebuttal stage, including spaces.

Go through their evidence with a fine tooth comb and address everything succinctly. No waffle.

Pick on the most important points first.

If they have not addressed specific points from your appeal, then tell the assessor this means they must therefore agree with your assertions by default.

KeithP

jugulator wrote: »

Also, I am guessing that I cannot upload anymore pictures and it just typing comments up to maximum 2000 words?

Wrong.

No new evidence and only 2000 characters.

Coupon-mad

Correct, you can't add new evidence photos.

Your main argument is certainly the sign hidden under a tree and the fact that there is only ONE other sign on a pole, and apparently two high up on a red brick wall which is around the corner from where the car was parked.

Point out that P/Eye have failed to show where the car even parked.

Say that the in/out photos are further back within the larger site access road - nothing shows that the driver even drove or parked anywhere near the signs and there are only (apparently) two of them on poles, by ParkingEye's own admission. Woefully inadequate.

jugulator

Thank you very much for all the comments. Will draft a response and put it here later.

nosferatu1001

Bullet points only
Use their evidence ref numbers to refer directly to their own pictures, which shows how woeful their signage in
POint out yoru appeal para x, y, z were not responded to, meanin ghte operator does not dispute them and is deemed to have accepted them. This means the appeal must succeed, as failing to meet the CoP and failing to provide sufficient signage are each sufficient to allow an appeal.

jugulator

Hello
I have drafted the following reply. Does this look ok?

1. ParkingEye (PE) did not respond to my comment that the sign was hidden under tree branch (page 3 of my appeal) - this means that PE does not dispute it and deemed to have agreed to it.
2. PE admits that there was only ONE other sign on a pole apart from the one at the entrance hidden under the tree. ParkingEye's own layout map shows, more than 2/3rd of the car park is not covered by any sign. Woefully inadequate signage (Ref: Car Park Signage Plan - Page 4 of 6)
3. If driver enters and turn right to park in a space on the second row there is no way of spotting any signs as all the signs are behind the driver (Ref: Car Park Signage Plan - Page 4 of 6)
4. PE failed show where the car was parked. The car was parked in the second row. There is no signage anywhere close to this part of the car park, as can be seen from PE's own evidence. The closest sign is a Pay and Display sign as per my evidence provided (Fig: 7 & 8 of my appeal)
5. The in/out photos are further back within the larger site access road - nothing shows that the driver even drove or parked anywhere near the signs (Photographs page - Section D)
6. PE failed show the boundaries of the car park. As this is in continuum with another car park, and also due to the lack of signage on this side of the car park (PE's own admission - Car Park Signage Plan - Page 4 of 6) the driver could have confused this car park with the pay and display car park adjacent to it, as there is no clear boundaries marked. PE did not respond to this comment on my appeal (page 5), therefore they must accept that the boundaries of the car park was not clear.

Many thanks