I hate myself for getting into this mess again

Dianna67

Parking Eye (PE) has failed to address any of my appeal points so those points must therefore be allowed:

• PE have not provided a signed contract with the landowner, nor a landowner signed statement therefore they have not proven that they have authority to operate on this site and issue PCN’s.
• PE have failed to prove that their sign font is readable; the small print on the images they provided cannot be read even by zooming in.
• PE failed to demonstrate how an alleged 10 minute overstay has caused £100 worth of loss. PE refers to the Beavis case; which is not applicable to paid-for parking. The Beavis case was based on an overstay in a free car park. In the case of PE Vs Cargius it was held that the Beavis case did not apply since parking was paid for rather than free for a limited period. The £100 PCN is therefore a punitive penalty.
• PE states that they offer a grace period on the site but fail to specify what it actually is, or what the exact grace period allowed by the landowner is.
• PE have failed to allow me reasonable grace periods upon entry and exit to the site

I paid for 4 hours. The original PCN and the case detail on page 12 of the uploaded evidence pack have rounded off my total time in the car park to 4 hours 10 minutes. The alleged 10 minute overstay falls well within a reasonable grace period of time allowed at the beginning and end of my stay.

PE state that clause 13.4 of the BPA CoP “does not mean that a second grace period must be given and that only one grace period ought to be applied”. This is in direct breach of the BPA CoP which clearly sets out 2 grace periods.

The 1st reasonable grace period applies as per clause 13.1, 13.2 and 13.3. Under these clauses I entered the gravel site which has no floor markings at all, it was chaos navigating around other vehicles and coaches. I found a parking space, located the nearest sign, noted the tariffs struggled to read the terms and conditions, logged onto the website, obtained my login and password, entered the location code, selected my required parking time, returned to my car, obtained my card and input my payment details and figuratively speaking “pressed the green button”.

The 2nd grace period is detailed under clause 13.4 which grants me time to leave the site. On 30th July 2015, it was formally agreed by the BPA members and stakeholders that the minimum grace period would be changed in 13.4 of the BPA CoP to read 'a minimum of eleven minutes'. If the BPA feel “a minimum of 11 minutes” is a reasonable time period to leave a car park after a period of parking, it stands to reason that at least the same period of time is reasonable to also enter a car park. Therefore the alleged 10 minute overstay in my case should reasonably be considered part of the 2 grace periods, particularly if you take into account the fact that it was rush hour and the car park leads directly onto one of Liverpools’ most congested roads which was and still is undergoing extensive roadworks. The queue to exit the car park was huge.

Also consider my earlier points regarding the court of appeal case between NCP and HMRC, Thornton vs Shoe Lane case, the case of PE v Ms X and my points re Kelvin Reynolds and the difference between 'grace' periods and 'observation' periods where no time limit is specified.

Umkomaas

If you continue to copy and paste direct from MS Word, you'll be getting an IP ban which means you'll struggle to post anything else - maybe at crucial times.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5706338/please-dont-copy-and-paste-from-word-outlook

Dianna67

Ohhh is that why I keep getting banned? I didn't know it wasn't allowed. Sorry

Coupon-mad

Do not even begin to say this to POPLA!

PE failed to demonstrate how an alleged 10 minute overstay has caused £100 worth of loss. PE refers to the Beavis case; which is not applicable to paid-for parking. The Beavis case was based on an overstay in a free car park. In the case of PE Vs Cargius it was held that the Beavis case did not apply since parking was paid for rather than free for a limited period. The £100 PCN is therefore a punitive penalty.

Redx

Dianna67 wrote: »

Ohhh is that why I keep getting banned? I didn't know it wasn't allowed. Sorry

It as posted over 2.5 years ago

Copy and paste into notepad and save , to to remove word formatting , then check the character count in word and notepad , then if it's under 2000 characters , post for critique , copying from notepad only , basic text , no frills

Do not mention no loss , Beavis killed that , so bear in mind what CM said above, no chattiness , no full stops at the end of paragraphs , no wasted spaces either

Short , concise , to the point

Dianna67

Okay, so by removing the loss paragraph, replacing the word "and" for &, removing full stops and some of the waffle I should be within the 2000 character limit. Does the rest sound okay?

Redx

Dianna67 wrote: »

Okay, so by removing the loss paragraph, replacing the word "and" for &, removing full stops and some of the waffle I should be within the 2000 character limit. Does the rest sound okay?

stripping out some of the above leaves it at almost 3000 characters , some 950 characters more than the limit

so some serious work needs to be done , post the draft below when you have cut out the waffle and spurious stuff so we can check the character count again (plus we can check the content too)

Dianna67

I've used notepad on my phone, so i'm not 100% sure of the character count. I've removed loads of grammer and words... What do you think?

PE have not provided a signed contract with the landowner, or signed statement therefore they have not proven that they have authority to operate on this site and issue PCN’s.
PE have failed to prove that their sign font is readable; the small print on the images they provided cant be read even by zooming in. PE states that they offer a grace period on the site but fail to specify what it actually is, or what the grace period allowed by the landowner is. PE failed to allow me reasonable grace periods upon entry & exit to the site

I paid for 4 hours. The original PCN & the case detail on page 12 of the uploaded evidence pack have logged my total time in the car park as 4 hours 10 minutes. The alleged 10 minute overstay falls within a reasonable grace period allowed at the start & end of my stay

PE state that clause 13.4 of the BPA CoP “does not mean that a second grace period must be given and that only one grace period ought to be applied”. This is a breach of the BPA CoP which sets out 2 grace periods

The 1st grace period applies as per clause 13.1, 13.2 & 13.3. Under these clauses I entered the gravel site which has no floor markings, it was chaos navigating around other vehicles & coaches. I found a parking space, located the nearest sign, noted the tariffs struggled to read the Ts&Cs, logged onto the website, obtained my login & password, entered the location code, selected my required parking time, returned to my car, obtained my card & input my payment details & figuratively speaking pressed the green button

The 2nd grace period is detailed under clause 13.4 which grants me time to leave the site. On 30/07/15, it was agreed by the BPA members & stakeholders that the minimum grace period would be changed in 13.4 of the BPA CoP to read a minimum of 11 minutes. If the BPA feel a minimum of 11 minutes is a reasonable time period to leave a car park after a period of parking, it stands to reason that at least the same period of time is reasonable to also enter a car park. Therefore the alleged 10 minute overstay in my case should reasonably be considered part of the 2 grace periods, particularly if you take into account the fact that it was rush hour & the car park leads directly onto one of Liverpools most congested roads which was & still is undergoing extensive roadworks. The queue to exit the car park was huge

Also consider the court of appeal case between NCP & HMRC, Thornton vs Shoe Lane case, the case of PE v Ms X & my points re Kelvin Reynolds and the difference between 'grace' periods & observation periods where no time limit is specified

KeithP

Your character count is now 2,600.

Dianna67

That last paragraph can be removed, as I referred to it in my original POPLA submission... I just added it to remind them to consider those points. If you feel its just repetition, then I'll take it out