ParkingEye - Chase Farm Hospital electric bay PCN

Gr1pr

As the newbies sticky thread tells everyone, choose OTHER

Popla codes last for 33 days, not 28 days

PartyPops

Ok thanks, appeal has now been submitted.

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81954620#Comment_81954620

As above.

This was in the NEWBIES thread in the section all about POPLA, in post 3.

Read that now because it also covers Comments stage.

PartyPops

So ParkingEye have submitted a massive response pack which contains allot of BS and unrelevant information (ANPR compliance , Beavis case references - !!!!!! anpr didnt even apply here and it wasnt an overstay, beavis case? I'm disputing signage clarity) anyway, I have worded a 5k word response myself and commented back to the POPLA appeal so its back to the assessor to review now.

Some things I noted in my response:

• ParkingEye asserts that “This site is an EV car park as clearly stated on the signage”, however they have produced no evidence whatsoever identifying the specific bay in which the vehicle was parked as an EV‑only bay.
• ParkingEye has not discharged its burden of proof. Operators are required to demonstrate that the specific space used by the vehicle was subject to the alleged restriction. Generic statements about the site do not meet this requirement.
• There is no evidence showing proximity or visibility of signs from the parked vehicle.
• ParkingEye has supplied stock signage photographs, taken close up and in isolation
• The entrance signage also contradicts ParkingEye's "EV Only Car Park" assertion. ParkingEye states: "This site is an EV car park as clearly stated on the signage" However, this is flatly contradicted by the entrance signage, which states "Pay on exit", presenting the site as a general pay and display car park.
• ParkingEye has also not rebutted the BPA CoP breach on bay markings. I cited BPA CoP 20.2, which requires that bays with different conditions must be clearly marked so the motorist is in no doubt.
• A bare assertion of compliance is not evidence. ParkingEye has provided no photograph or diagram showing compliant EV BAY MARKINGS.
• A payment was made which undermines "EV only" narrative. ParkingEye's own whitelist data confirms that the vehicle registration was entered and a 3 hour parking payment was made. If bays were genuinely EV only and exlcuded from paid parking, the payment system should reasonably either prevent payment or warn the motorist that the vehicle is not eligible to park there. ParkingEye has not explained why paid parking was accepted if the bay was restricted, which further supports that the bay appeared to be a standard paid bay.
• The landowner authority evidence is also absent or inadequate. ParkingEye claims it has landowner authority but produces no unredacted contract, no boundary plan and no evidence that the landowner authorised enforcement for EV only bays / unmarked bays / paid users in this area of the car park.

Much of ParkingEye's submission consists of:

- ANPR explanations (irrelivant - this is not an overstay case)

- Beavis case references (irrelevant - signage clarity is disputed here)

- Statements of belief rather than evidence

None of this addresses the core issue: How was a motorist supposed to know that this unmarked bay was EV only?

END OF Response

Fingers crossed