ParkingEye POPLA Rebuttal help

fisherjim

MistyZ wrote: »

I can't make the link work so am somewhat in the dark..

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eaEAOEblLrOSP8ZGt4-Fsb048enLu6mH/view

MistyZ

Thanks for the link fisherjim.

As per usual, the scanned landowner contract is so blurry that only the easily predicted parts are legible and zooming in makes no difference. I think that's worth mentioning briefly though doubt it'll produce a win.

What is odd is the appearance of the date under 'Signed for and on behalf of ParkingEye'. The month number is not a number, not even a scribbled or curiously written number. It looks as if part of it has been erased. I'd comment on that - nothing to lose by doing so.

Appealant123

Hi guys, thanks so much for your help! I've got to submit by today. Have taken your feedback and put this together (1580 characters) - would appreciate a last minute check / any tweaks you may suggest. Again, thank you.

Link to evidence pack (thanks fisherjm for reposting) - Spaces need to be removed:
https:// drive.google.com/ file/d/1eaEAOEblLrOSP8ZGt4-Fsb048enLu6mH/view

The Notice to Keeper does not comply with sub-paragraph 9 (2 & 5) and is not POFA compliant - Under schedule 4, paragraph 4 of the POFA, an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle if certain conditions are met as stated in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 & 12. ParkingEye’s own documentation shows the event to which they refer occurred on 11/07/2019, but they did not issue the PCN until 14/08/2019, 33 days later.

The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge.

Parking eyes car park signs on the Cains Brewery site is inadequate and illegible in a number of ways, not least because of the sheer amount of text that must be read. The terms on the signage are displayed in a font which is too small to be read from any reasonable distance, such that it cannot be read from within a parked vehicle, especially if parked in the centre. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance Code of Practice states (13) there are two grace periods: one at the end (of a minimum of 10 minutes) and one at the start. Contract with PE states no grace period to be given.

Contract is blurry and only predictable areas are legible with the majority of the terms blanked out. Also, zooming in makes no difference.

Date under ‘Signed for and on behalf of Parking Eye’ contract - the month written is not a number and this suggests it has been erased or changed

Fruitcake

PoPLA assessors have trouble counting and understanding the strict requirements of the PoFA 2012, so I suggest you add that the PoFA requires the NTK to be received by the keeper no later than day 14 beginning with the day after the alleged event as per para 9 sub para … (quote the precise wording) before saying the NTK was issued 34 days later and deemed to have arrived two working days after that, a total of 36 days.

(You need to read and understand the relevant part of the PoFA to work out how many days after the alleged event [day zero] before the NTK was issued which was 34, not 33.)
You need to be precise and correct when quoting acts of parliament.

Fruitcake

The effective date at the top of the contract page is blank, so that means there is no confirmed start date.

The contract fails the requirements of the Companies Act 2006 which requires two signatures from each party, or a director's signature and a witness.

Appealant123

Fruitcake - thanks for coming back so quickly. I've made some adjustments below, just under 2000 characters now.

Do you think this is ready to go?

The Notice to Keeper DOES NOT comply with sub-paragraph 9 (2 & 5) and is not POFA compliant - PoFA requires the Notice To Keeper to be received by the keeper no later than day 14 beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended. Under schedule 4, paragraph 4 of the POFA, an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle if certain conditions are met stated in paragraphs 5, 6, 11, 12. ParkingEye’s own documentation shows the event to which they refer occurred on 11/07/2019, but they did not issue the NTK until 14/08/2019, 34 days later. The NTK is deemed to have arrived two working days after that a total of 36 days after the event

The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge therefore my appeal must be allowed

Parking Eyes car park signs on the Cains Brewery site is inadequate and illegible in a number of ways not least due to the sheer amount of text that must be read. The terms on the signage are displayed in a font which is too small to be read from any reasonable distance such that it cannot be read from within a parked vehicle especially if parked in the centre. There is nothing to state how close the car was parked to a sign. It is therefore denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract

Top of the contract shows no start date, the space is left blank so we can not assume the contract is currently active

Contract is blurry and only predictable areas are legible with the majority of the terms blanked out. Zooming in makes no difference

Date under ‘Signed for and on behalf of Parking Eye’ - the month wrote is not a number. This suggests it has been erased or changed

Companies Act 2006 requires two signatures from each party or a director's signature and a witness. This contract complies with neither and therefore fails the requirements

Redx

Should be

Are inadequate

Appealant123

Submitted the comments! Thanks again, everyone. I'll post an update once we hear back.

Fruitcake

It's too late now but your wording might have been a bit more specific.

Top of the contract shows no start date, the space is left blank so[STRIKE] we can not assume the contract is currently active[/STRIKE]. Parking Eye have not shown that a contract was in place at the time of the alleged event.

Appealant123

Ahh I see what you mean. Would have been nice to end on a strong point too.

Let's see what comes back anyway - good learning for someone else if needed.

Again, appreciate the support!!