Plan A Did Not Work

CarTeach

In fact, this is the signage of the underground car park where I was parked. Sign #6 is the one that is redacted, but in the POPLA evidence, it is not redacted. Sign #5 is the yellow "Pay Here" sign, and Sign #2 is the one that is around the corner that I have already shown. I could not see the Sign #2 facing me as I left probably because it was crowded/blocked by people standing there.

Kim_13

Their picture is almost two years old - it could have been damaged or defaced in the meantime. And from the picture you posted, someone appears to have done exactly that and taped over the 2-3 hour instruction which would otherwise have implied (though hardly made explicit) a 3 hour maximum stay.

EDIT; 2 years old, not 1 - not got used to it being 2024 yet!

CarTeach

Thank you, Kim_13! I have just written an email to my MP and cc'd the heads of Asda. I've included my photos and complained robustly that the situation basically amounts to entrapment. 

This is what I'll be sending--partially taken from Coupon-Mad elsewhere on this website:

In addition, having the crucial terms redacted on the sign by the parking machine I used and went to check upon arrival does not help matters. 

I do not take kindly to having to waste my time appealing against this grossly inflated and predatory Parking Charge Notice just because I was in the Asda car park and shopping.

Please also see attached formal appeal to the independent adjudicator. The claim is that the signage is adequate, and yet, if one were to actually go and park where I did underground, you would see that you can easily miss much of the signage Asda staff claim are "everywhere."

Add in the small lettering in the signs and the confusing or lack of wording in other signs, and this is a recipe for entrapment.

The whole situation stinks and brings the good name of Asda--as well as Rugby town centre--into disrepute.

I am also thinking about bringing my story and photos to the Rugby Advertiser if this issue cannot be resolved. 

Being harassed in such a way for simply trying to support my local town by shopping there is a travesty.

Yours faithfully,

CarTeach

And I think I will put through a complaint in response to the POPLA "evidence" that their signage photos are 2 years old and show them the one I've taken by the parking machine that has terms redacted!

Coupon-mad

Yes do that. In fact, ring POPLA and ask for permission to email your comments.  Don't tell them why.

DO NOT SAY YOU WANT TO ADD A NEW PHOTO.  TECHNICALLY NOT ALLOWED.

Just say 'email is more accessible' and you are 'struggling' with the Portal and can't seem to access the comments box on your phone so you want to email your comments as the evidence of signs is misleading.

POPLA will agree, if you talk about being unable to access the comments box.

Then once they say yes, and tell you which email address to use, email concise POPLA comments showing 'spot the difference' in the signage photos (NB: embed the date of image in your photo first or screenshot the photo, to show the metadata).

Do not provide an undated photo.

Your complaints need to be FAR simpler too, and not call POPLA (parking firm paid for service arranged by their own Trade Body) an 'independent adjudicator' because they are neither!

Your complaints need to be a 'spot the difference/look at these two photos' really simple matter to expose the misleading rubbish.  That's why I wrote you some wording about stickers.  That's the complaint.

CarTeach

Thank you for the extra input, Coupon-mad. I've been at work all day so haven't had a chance to revisit this, but at least the email went out to the MP last night.

Appreciate what you've said about "spot the difference" and will hopefully get this done just as you describe--thanks again.

CarTeach

Would appreciate any feedback on the following email I'm about to send--as I know I have a tendency to be wordy!

I will be including ParkingEye's version of Sign No. 6 and the version I took on Monday, dated as per Coupon-mad's advice (see below).

Hello POPLA Team,

I spoke to one of your colleagues via telephone earlier today who very kindly gave me permission to email my comments as I have been struggling with the portal and accessing the comments box.

The packet I received said the following with regards to confusion around parking maximum: 

We ensure that all our signage is clear, ample, and in keeping with the British Parking Association (BPA) regulations. The signage at this site demonstrates adequate colour contrast between the text and the backgrounds advised in the BPA Code of Practice

However, the sign I saw does not match the sign that ParkingEye says is there.

Nowhere by the actual parking machine does it state anything about a maximum stay.

As you can see from below, ParkingEye have obliterated half the term about paying £2, begging the question: why doesn't it state that £2 is only for one extra hour?

If ParkingEye went to the trouble of applying a sticker, why not put in place something that says "3 HOURS TOTAL STAY" or "YOUR £2 ALLOWS 1 EXTRA HOUR ABOVE THE FIRST 2 HOURS."

The evidence ParkingEye has submitted does not match with what is on site.

Sincerely,

Coupon-mad

As you can see from below, ParkingEye have obliterated half the term about paying £2, begging the question: why doesn't it state that £2 is only for one extra hour?

Add clearly that the black thing in the image beside 'Step 4' is a sticker on the sign.  The evidence pack is out of date.  All signs have this black sticker covering up the line above, so that the instructions only say 'Please use the payment machine and pay £2 for your parking'.

CarTeach

Thanks for the additional wording. Unfortunately, I panicked and sent it off as I was worried about going over the 7 days I supposedly had to respond. I did receive this earlier today:

Good afternoon   

 

This information has now been added to your appeal.  

 

I note 3 images were also sent. 

 

We must advise that the motorist comment stage is intended for the addition of comments only. We are not required to consider any new evidence introduced at this stage of the appeal. It will be considered at the assessor’s discretion.   

You did warn me about this, but I don't see why they would bother asking me to respond if I can't otherwise prove that their evidence is faulty?

It really is a scam, isn't it! It's so depressing and makes me so angry. I am thinking to contact the local paper sooner rather than later (i.e. waiting for my MP to respond) as I feel angry that local citizens are treated in this way.

Will keep you posted, but wanted to say thank you again for all your help!

Coupon-mad

We are not required to consider any new evidence introduced at this stage of the appeal. It will be considered at the assessor’s discretion.

This is good. Better than we knew.

I didn't even know they had discretion to look at those photos. I thought they wouldn't, but hoped including them would sow a seed of doubt...

Contact the paper with your evidence REGARDLESS of the POPLA outcome.  ParkingEye are going to look bad anyway but if POPLA fail you and look incompetent too, that's OK because they are being replaced this year, by Government regulatory intervention.

You won't be paying anyway,