ParkingEye Terms and conditions

disgruntleddriver2025

Gr1pr said:

The ace is the signs on the poles that say PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY,  hence the parked without authorisation allegation,  not about marked bays at all

Unregistered vehicle onsite, for a period of time shown on the original NTK PCN letter,  captured by ANPR cameras 

I would expect that PE shared signage images in their evidence pack to popla,  including the permit holders only signs 

They did share images in their pack, yes - so you are saying that this is unwinnable for me?

Gr1pr

disgruntleddriver2025 said:

Gr1pr said:

Looking at your street view, it clearly says PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY on the sign on the pole 

I took the photos later on after receiving the initial PCN, I hadn't seen them at the time as I didn't even realise I was parked in parkingeye area.

Then that would be the basis of the in your own words paragraph 3.1  ( or possibly 6.1  )

Poor and inadequate unlit signage etc

disgruntleddriver2025

Gr1pr said:

The ace is the signs on the poles that say PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY,  hence the parked without authorisation allegation,  not about marked bays at all

Unregistered vehicle onsite, for a period of time shown on the original NTK PCN letter,  captured by ANPR cameras 

I would expect that PE shared signage images in their evidence pack to popla,  including the permit holders only signs 

They did share signage images in the evidence pack, yes - so are you saying the fact that the cobbles aren't properly visible at night is irrelevant because of the presence of the signage and the case is unwinnable? 

disgruntleddriver2025

Gr1pr said:

disgruntleddriver2025 said:

Gr1pr said:

Looking at your street view, it clearly says PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY on the sign on the pole 

I took the photos later on after receiving the initial PCN, I hadn't seen them at the time as I didn't even realise I was parked in parkingeye area.

Then that would be the basis of the in your own words paragraph 3.1  ( or possibly 6.1  )

Poor and inadequate unlit signage etc

Right got you, forget my repeat reply as I didn't see we were on page 2 now of the forum, my bad - did you have a link to the alternative defence you suggested?

Gr1pr

Coupon-mad provides the details in 2 distinct places,  the newbies sticky thread post 2, plus the defence template thread,  both in announcements,  so we dont link sticky threads in announcements 

I cannot tell you which to use,  but can advise you to study both and choose the best option for your case

I will say that the main reason I asked you if DCB Legal were involved or not was because the decision is based on the reply

Ps, it didn't matter where the vehicle was parked,  the fact that an unauthorised vehicle was present onsite for a period of time led to the NTK PCN letter being issued.   You could have parked right next to the pole with the permit sign on it, the NTK PCN letter would still have been the same 

Coupon-mad

You are not using any alternative defence. You will use the template defence with para 3 being about unreadable & unlit signs at night.

Is the claim for £125 plus costs, or £130?

The POC are not saying you parked outside of a marked bay. No wonder you lost at POPLA if you argued about that when the PCN was for not having an e-permit (presumably).

disgruntleddriver2025

Coupon-mad said:

You are not using any alternative defence. You will use the template defence with para 3 being about unreadable & unlit signs at night.

Is the claim for £125 plus costs, or £130?

The POC are not saying you parked outside of a marked bay. No wonder you lost at POPLA if you argued about that when the PCN was for not having an e-permit (presumably).

The claim is for £125 + costs. The PCN doesn't mention a permit in particular and mentions "patronage", but with the stated location being confusingly a different location to where I was parked (despite the images being of the place I was actually parked), It was these discrepancies I particularly argued about in the appeal to POPLA, in combination with the before mentioned T&Cs about the bays.

.

In the evidence pack provided to Popla, they show images of the signs at day time and highlight lamp-posts in the vicinity - however despite the presence of the lamp-posts the signs weren't actually lit at the time I parked - I feel like the presence of the lamp posts makes it hard to argue though, as if they had been on at the time I probably would have seen the signs - that's why I was focused on the bays and T&Cs in particular as that felt more verifiable.

disgruntleddriver2025

The ANPR does show that the location was pitch-black other than my dipped headlights though - which didn't highlight that first "permit holders only" sign due to the height - perhaps I could use that in the defence?

Gr1pr

You should study the research regarding ANPR pictures versus modern CCTV pictures,  they are deliberately dark because they are only interested in picking out the VRM details , nothing else 

Coupon-mad

disgruntleddriver2025 said:

The ANPR does show that the location was pitch-black other than my dipped headlights though - which didn't highlight that first "permit holders only" sign due to the height - perhaps I could use that in the defence?

Yes. We already said you will use that.

And where was this 'terminal in reception' that the PCN talks about. Reception of what premises? Were they even open? Did PEye show a pic of the keypad terminal (and signs inside the premises) to POPLA? Can you get a pic of those?