Yet another scumbag parking eye letter - Fox House, Derby - POPLA Stage

usernamenotfound

Just FYI, I have submitted the POPLA appeal following comments and revisions. Will keep update when I hear back from them.

usernamenotfound

Parkingeye has now provided their own evidence for the POPLA appeal.

Not sure what the best way to post this is.

Am I allowed to attach their word document here?

usernamenotfound

I've posted their text on pastebin, but it does not include the photos and images they have in the document.

https://pastebin.com/udJdHCX1

usernamenotfound

Here is the contract agreement

usernamenotfound

Can I note that a total of 5no parking signages on the walls of the car park is insufficient.

On top of this, these photos and plans are dated March 2025. How would the POPLA assessor know that the signs are still there, or more importantly, that they were there at the time of the "parking violation"

And on top of this, Their red line plan is incorrect! At the top left corner, where the two construction trailer-like buildings are, those trailers no longer exist, and it is now also part of the car park. That is where the car was parked.

Coupon-mad

Yes mention all that, plus the fact that the woefully inadequate 5 signs hidden on far walls only say 'this area' not 'this car park'.

With only 5 isolated signs, they were not seen as the cars in the car park cover the view of the walls.

Even if one of those signs had been noticed, it is fair to conclude (because they only say 'this area' and strangely not 'this car park') that only those immediate 'areas' adjacent to each sign are for permit holders.

Further, as my images prove, no signs exist at all in the newly developed area - which is not shown on their map - top left shows two temporary contractor 'hut' type buildings back in March, but they are gone. This car park has been expanded at that place and there is now an extra parking area where the car was parked. No signs are there. See my photo evidence.

usernamenotfound

Thanks @Coupon-mad

I'll draft something up and get back to them this week.

usernamenotfound

Hi All,

Let me know what you think of the below:

….

Parkingeye have submitted their “evidence” in support of their speculative and disputed invoice. Their submission is quite clearly a rehashed template, with repeated paragraphs and points that are irrelevant to my initial appeal submission.

1) A total of 5no parking signages on the walls of the car park is insufficient, plus the fact that the woefully inadequate 5no signs hidden on far walls only say 'this area' not 'this car park'. With only 5no isolated signs, they were not seen as the cars in the car park cover the view of the walls.

Even if one of those signs had been noticed, it is fair to conclude (because they only say 'this area' and strangely not 'this car park') that only those immediate 'areas' adjacent to each sign are for permit holders.

Further, as my images prove, no signs exist at all in the newly developed area - which is not shown on their map - top left shows two temporary contractor 'hut' type buildings back in March, but they are gone. This car park has been expanded at that place and there is now an extra parking area where the car was parked. No signs are there. See my photo evidence.

On top of this, their photos and plans are dated March 2025. There is no proof that these signs are still there, or more importantly, that they were there at the time of the "parking violation".

2) Parkingeye have stated: “You have stated that you do not believe that the Parking Charge amount is a pre-estimation of loss, or that it is extravagant, unfair or unreasonable.” I did not mention this in my initial appeal, again, proving that this is likely an automated response template from Parkingeye. But I will rebut this nonetheless.

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 them to demonstrate the loss that has occurred as a result of the alleged breach.

3) Their copy of the contract is heavily redacted - hiding information that could be relevant to the costs calculation fails to meet the strict proof of contract terms needed. The “contract” that they have provided appears to be doctored, as signatures of both the customer and Parkingeye are hidden, I dispute that this document has allegedly been signed and is merely a reworked template. Furthermore, the contract does not indicate an expiry date, merely deflecting the term commencement date to a “Go-Live Date”. The contract defines “Go-Live Date” as “the date on which We commission Our Solution at the Car Park(s) and from which date We shall begin to issue Parking Charge Notices at the Car Park(s) “. They have failed to provide this date.

Regards

Coupon-mad

Remove point 2 which has no legs and will drag the Assessor off on the ParkingEye v Beavis tangent (there is no argument you can make that a PC has to be a GPEOL so drop that completely).

usernamenotfound

Thanks @Coupon-mad

I'll make these changes and then send it over