Parking fine- driver left site

Coupon-mad

Yes, using body worn video, as long as there is a justification (which a parking charge is).

To the OP just do short comments (the NEWBIES thread already tells you about POPLA comments stage). 

Jimpossible

To be honest, I don't know how to respond to some of the counter points. I am writing up what I can now but it's not easy that's for sure. This is what I have so far:

__________________________________________________________________________________

Dear Sirs

Ref. POPLA appeal xxxxxxxxxx

In response to the "evidence pack" TPS have submitted:

TPS are attempting to downplay my appeal as a template. All points raised are valid and are grounds for a cancellation of the PCN. TPS have not provided strict proof that the driver left the site and instead provided a vague description of the colours of clothes a person was wearing who may or may not have been the driver of the vehicle. This fails the BPA recommendation. No adequate description of the driver was made, no video evidence of the driver leaving the site and no location details on where they are alleged to have left the site. The statement was not signed by the landowner, so cannot be considered in any official capacity. The overall proof of the contravention could be made by any third party looking at the supporting evidence TPS have provided.

1. Insufficient evidence of the alleged contravention

TPS has stated that the signage was appropriate. They have not shown the signage location in respect to where the vehicle was parked nor have they shown proof a sign is by the location where the driver is alleged to have left the site. If the alleged contravention occurred, it is uncertain that  the terms and conditions were accessible during the driver route from vehicle to where they might have left the site. There is also no clear proof of signage regarding the alleged contravention on entry to the car park. Most car parks have an easily read-able sign on entry which would read, “customer parking only” TPS have only shown images of signs that would not be readable by someone operating a vehicle.

2. No site boundary defined

TPS have responded with an edited google maps image of the car park boundaries. I reiterate that this boundary is not shown on any signage that a visitor to this car park can view. Therefore, no visitor to the carpark can know when they are leaving the site as they do not have access to the online TPS edited google maps boundary they have provided to reject my appeal.

In consideration of all the evidence before me, I find that the operator has failed to prove that the parking charge is valid given the lack of evidence that the driver actually did leave the site.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

Regards

Coupon-mad

Looks fine.  If there's no photo evidence provided of the driver leaving the car then leaving the site, you will win.

Grizebeck

I would change to
As per my appeal I deny leaving site.
TPS have provided zero evidence of me leaving site and are belittling my appeal

Short and sweet.

Jimpossible

Thank you @Coupon-mad and @Grizebeck for replying to me so soon.

As you both said, no evidence of the contravention so what I have is enough. TPS are trying to bury me in a load of drivel, probably to make my life harder and deter me or others from appealing them again. They shall not prevail! Submitting now and will update the thread in order to help others and you have helped me. 

Fruitcake

The operator has failed to provide proof that the driver left site.
The parking contract is formed by signage at the site. This signage does not include a definition of the site boundary, nor a map showing the site boundary. Without a defined boundary, it is impossible for the operator to prove the driver crossed said boundary.
In the appeal case of Thornton v Shoe Lane, it was determined that additional contract terms cannot be added after the event. The operator cannot therefore define the site boundary after the parking event has occurred. It must be done at the time the contract to park was agreed, which it was not.

Jimpossible

Fruitcake said:

The operator has failed to provide proof that the driver left site.
The parking contract is formed by signage at the site. This signage does not include a definition of the site boundary, nor a map showing the site boundary. Without a defined boundary, it is impossible for the operator to prove the driver crossed said boundary.
In the appeal case of Thornton v Shoe Lane, it was determined that additional contract terms cannot be added after the event. The operator cannot therefore define the site boundary after the parking event has occurred. It must be done at the time the contract to park was agreed, which it was not.

thank you. I went with this in the end. Will update with the final decision.

NeilBaxter

How did you get on? I'm replying to TPS' comments today, my circumstances are identical. 

Nellymoser

@NeilBaxter If you click on OP username you'll see date they were last active on forum.
Hope your username is not your real name.