ParkingEye 1st Appeal rejected

Coupon-mad

Please read this poster's other posts, where he continually criticises posters for apparently breaching clear terms and tells people to pay, even unfair PCNs.

Read as well, the regulars' replies taking issue with this new poster's stance which mirrors that of other angry PPC posters, and make your own mind up which advice is better, @knocker235.

Terry1931

Coupon-mad said:

Please read this poster's other posts, where he continually criticises posters for apparently breaching clear terms and tells people to pay, even unfair PCNs.

Read as well, the regulars' replies taking issue with this new poster's stance which mirrors that of other angry PPC posters, and make your own mind up which advice is better, @knocker235.

By Not taking the advice of the sages of this forum I got my PCN refunded by Parking Eye in record time. 

So yes the choice is yours. 

patient_dream

Knocker .... this is your thread and you should only listen to Coupon-mad, Redx, Le_kirk, D_P_Dance who have responded to you already. They know what they are doing

knocker235

Hi All,

It's me again.
Today I received an update from POPLA asking me to comment on ParkingEye reply.
They sent me the file below as a response to my POPLA claim.

!!!!!!/joEGX

Could you please advise what can I do in this case?
Do I just ignore that?
I have 7 days to response.

Thanks again all for your help

Redx

Forget the 7 days , it's 6 days once you receive it

No you do not ignore it

You draft a concise Popla comments reply of 2000 characters , not words and upload it within 6 days ( so short concise bullet points , no waffle , no punctuation , no war and peace )

This draft contains anything where they failed , plus anything else that backs up your Popla appeal

So go through their evidence pack looking for those 2 nuggets , those failures and those items that assist your case

knocker235

Redx said:

Forget the 7 days , it's 6 days once you receive it

No you do not ignore it

You draft a concise Popla comments reply of 2000 characters , not words and upload it within 6 days ( so short concise bullet points , no waffle , no punctuation , no war and peace )

This draft contains anything where they failed , plus anything else that backs up your Popla appeal

So go through their evidence pack looking for those 2 nuggets , those failures and those items that assist your case

Thanks Redx,
I was planning it add below comment but it's above 2000 letters, which part do you advise to keep and which to remove.

Dear Sirs

Ref. POPLA appeal XXX

In response to the "evidence pack" ParkingEye have submitted:
ParkingEye Have submitted many points  ‘evidence’ pack in support of their speculative and disputed invoice.

I do not intend to address each and every point they have raised in detail as their submission is clearly a quickly hashed template, much of which is repetitive or indeed irrelevant to the matter at hand.

In making their assessment I ask the POPLA assessor to consider the following in further support of my original POPLA appeal as submitted on 23/09/2021.

1. There is no Genuine Pre-estimated of Loss breakdown included to show how they have come up with £100: As business costs are not losses and they cannot be passed down to a motorist as GPEOL. ParkingEye seem to infer that it is up to me to demonstrate how their £100 is not a GPEOL - I am not sure this is possible and is any case a moot point as the burden of proof is upon ParkingEye to demonstrate the loss that has occurred as a result of the alleged breach. Despite submitting this huge 'evidence' pack they have failed to do this.

2. There seems to be no valid copy of an unredacted contract included between ParkingEye and the Car Park, which is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge.
This could include information about 'money changing hands' in the contract - thus hiding information that could be relevant to the costs calculation fails to meet the strict proof of contract terms needed. In any case, the document submitted which ParkingEye claim is an unredacted contract is dated after the alleged breach of contract took place.

3. Signage: Use of capital letters and mixing large and small font are also deemed unclear as far as signage is concerned. ParkingEye have mixed this into their signs despite the fact they appear to be new and should match the requirements of the BPA CoP.

Furthermore it simply would not be possible to read any signs whilst in a moving car, and certainly not have read them sufficiently to have be deemed to fully understand the T&C's to which it is alleged I agreed as the registered keeper of the vehicle. ParkingEye's own 'evidence' photos show that a number of the signs are perpendicular to the flow of traffic, and by their own admission since the driver "drove off" logically indicating they did not deem the contact acceptable thus rejecting it - Again there is no evidence of a contravention taking place as the vehicle was never parked and left after 5 minutes which is the minimum time as the code stats and as ParkingEye mentioned in their “evidence pack".
Also T&C's have been written in a very small font which requires at least couple of minutes to finish reading it.

4. Location: There is no evidence that the car was parked in Corporation Street, Preston PR1 2UP at that time. This location is far by 0.2 miles from the actual location that the car was intending to park in. the photos of the car was captured in Seed Street, Preston PR1 2XD.
a quick check on the map shows these are two different locations.

In consideration of all the evidence before me, I find that the operator has failed to prove that the
car parked in this parking and break the T&Cs.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed."
Regards

KeithP

You certainly must remove all reference to a general pre-estimate of loss.

That argument vanished with the Beavis case in 2015.

Redx

Get rid of all the preliminary waffle at the beginning , so all of it before 1

Get rid of 1 , that argument died a death with the Parking Eye versus Barry Beavis case in 2015 , 6 years ago , in the Supreme court in London

Get rid of all the waffle at the end , after 4

This isn't a letter , it needs to be as concise as possible , if it's over 2000 characters , it's got too much spurious Cr** in it !!

Pare it right down

knocker235

Thanks KeithP & Redx for your response, I'll keep all important points and then submit to POPLA.

Redx

knocker235 said:

Redx said:

Forget the 7 days , it's 6 days once you receive it

No you do not ignore it

You draft a concise Popla comments reply of 2000 characters , not words and upload it within 6 days ( so short concise bullet points , no waffle , no punctuation , no war and peace )

This draft contains anything where they failed , plus anything else that backs up your Popla appeal

So go through their evidence pack looking for those 2 nuggets , those failures and those items that assist your case

Thanks Redx,
I was planning it add below comment but it's above 2000 letters, which part do you advise to keep and which to remove.

1. There seems to be no valid copy of an unredacted contract included between ParkingEye and the Car Park, which is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge.
This could include information about 'money changing hands' in the contract - thus hiding information that could be relevant to the costs calculation fails to meet the strict proof of contract terms needed. In any case, the document submitted which ParkingEye claim is an unredacted contract is dated after the alleged breach of contract took place.

2. Signage: Use of capital letters and mixing large and small font are also deemed unclear as far as signage is concerned. ParkingEye have mixed this into their signs despite the fact they appear to be new and should match the requirements of the BPA CoP.

Furthermore it simply would not be possible to read any signs whilst in a moving car, and certainly not have read them sufficiently to have be deemed to fully understand the T&C's to which it is alleged I agreed as the registered keeper of the vehicle. ParkingEye's own 'evidence' photos show that a number of the signs are perpendicular to the flow of traffic, and by their own admission since the driver "drove off" logically indicating they did not deem the contact acceptable thus rejecting it - 

3 There is no evidence of a contravention taking place as the vehicle was never parked and left after 5 minutes which is the minimum time as the CoP states and as ParkingEye mentioned in their “evidence pack".
Also T&C's have been written in a very small font which requires at least couple of minutes to finish reading it.

4. Location: There is no evidence that the car was parked in Corporation Street, Preston PR1 2UP at that time. This location is 0.2 miles from the actual location that the car was intending to park in. the photos of the car was captured in Seed Street, Preston PR1 2XD. A quick check on the map shows these are two different locations.

So pare the above down