Park watch (Not parked Wholly within bay)

D_P_Dance

Have you read the newbies?  Have you complained to your MP?  

Fruitcake

Did you complain to the manager and CEO of Tescos? You should never complain to anyone below that level.
If the car park is part of a retail park then ask the council who pays the non-domestic business rates and look up the retail park website for contact details.

Get pics of the site and signage, then construct a PoPLA appeal using all the template points available to you from the third post of the NEWBIES. Show us your draft for checking before you submit it.

Coupon-mad

Not sure what you need to know that's not already in the 3rd post of the NEWBIES thread?

Getting a rejection letter and POPLA code was what you were expecting.

Bobby0900

I have appealed to POPLA about just had an reply to had comments to the response. I am really not sure what I need to add that I haven't already said. It seems they have already made a decision. The appeal has included 33 images of where signs are situated in the car park but none were near where I was parked, that you can clearly see. They also mention that the car was not parked wholly within the bay, but the pictures they have of the vehicle show a space either side, but that was only because the next to me had left and the car in front had moved, they suggested I should have moved but my was there fir 5 minutes getting calpol for our autistic son and didn't want to waste time trying to park else where. The popla appeal states they asked for  me to  give the driver details but I didn't. Not sure what to do now 

KeithP

Just keep following the guidance in the NEWBIES thread.

Does this bit from the third post of the NEWBIES thread help?...

Bobby0900

Thank you so much yes that's great 

Bobby0900

There are a lot of comments 🤦‍♀️

Bobby0900

The Appellant does however state “I feel the charge is unfair due to the fact there was a car parked in front of the vehicle which prevented the driver from parking in the whole bay. There was a purchase made and returned to the car within 10 mins.”

The Appellant has admitted that the Driver utilised the car park and thus entered into a contract agreeing to comply.

The Driver would have driven past an entrance sign stating: ‘Parking Conditions Apply. See notices in the car park for details. Private Land’ It is the Drivers responsibility to ensure that they have located, read and can fully comply with the terms and conditions before agreeing to park on-site.

We would advise that further signage is situated throughout the site detailing the terms and conditions of parking. See attached sperate image pack.

The Appellant has not denied the Driver seeing the said signage. We cannot be held liable for the Driver failing to see or ignoring the signage.

Signage on-site clearly states the terms and conditions of parking, including stating “Park within the white lines of the parking bay only.”

By parking as the Driver did, the vehicle was causing an obstruction to other vehicles manouvering around the car park.

If the Driver felt unable to comply due to a vehicle parked in front of their vehicle, they could have parked in a different parking space. As shown in the images taken by our operative, there were multiple other available bays. Furthermore, the Driver had ample opportunity to remove the vehicle from the car park to seek alternative parking.

The signage clearly states the terms and conditions of parking.

It also states that by entering or parking on this land contravening the terms and conditions, you are agreeing to pay a £100 Parking Charge Notice.

With regards to any remarks that the Parking Charge Notice is punitive and unreasonable and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, we refer you to the Supreme Court decision dated 4th November 2015, Parking Eye Ltd-v-Mr Barry Beavis. Details on the case be found at https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0116.html. This case was seen as an important ‘test case’ due to the complex legal arguments used by both sides. The ruling sets a legally binding precedent on all similar cases for the whole of the United Kingdom.

As can be seen from our photographic evidence, the vehicle was not parked wholly within a marked bay.

It is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that they have read and parked in compliance with the terms and conditions. On this occasion, the Driver did not.

We request that the Appellant's appeal be refused.

3

Bobby0900

This is their comments even though there is signage it is spread out through the carp park and the ones at the entrance you cannot read as you are driving. The ones they have included that are near the shops are not obvious to what they are either. 

Coupon-mad

Why do you say that POPLA have already made their decision, when that's not POPLA's words?  That's merely the boring case summary from the parking firm, and they would say all that, wouldn't they?!  

And you know from the Comment section I wrote in the NEWBIES thread that you only had SIX DAYS with the Portal open to add comment and you only have 2000 characters to respond to the PPC's evidence.  Crack on!

And please tell us you know about these other two threads (below) and have done both required urgent tasks?

I really hope you have done the Government Consultation and objected absolutely to ANY debt recovery fake 'costs' being added on top of a parking charge (of course) and told them what you think of them increasing charges to £130 instead of £100...which is already extortionate.

You have 5 days to do the consultation.  Please, please, do and do it by email so you attach evidence.  Spread the word, is closes within days, next week!

Also, I hope you've also registered for the Group Action, against the DVLA (open to anyone with a PCN since 2018?).  Gotta be in it to win it!  Nothing to lose, and it's genuine.

Read the threads about those important matters, they both need doing, right now, this week.