Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Beckie1406
    • By Beckie1406 5th Dec 17, 1:08 PM
    • 20Posts
    • 6Thanks
    Beckie1406
    Parking eye appeal
    • #1
    • 5th Dec 17, 1:08 PM
    Parking eye appeal 5th Dec 17 at 1:08 PM
    Hi I'm a newbie

    I followed Martin's guide on appealing a parking eye ticket. My husband was driving but I have failed to identify him as the driver as per the advice.
    There was no barrier or information in the hotel he went to to advise of charges. He was there for 43 minutes and they want £60 in 14 days. He didn't see signs as it was dark.

    They have written to say the appeal is on hold while they await more information and it looks like they want me to name the driver.

    What should I do now?

    Thanks in advance
Page 2
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 22nd Feb 18, 10:55 PM
    • 58,533 Posts
    • 72,030 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    You sent it 2 and a half weeks ago. That's nothing. You will see PE's evidence in March.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Beckie1406
    • By Beckie1406 23rd Feb 18, 7:56 AM
    • 20 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Beckie1406
    I am tracking and it just says pending
    • Beckie1406
    • By Beckie1406 26th Feb 18, 6:53 PM
    • 20 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Beckie1406
    I've had a popla update. Pe have uploaded their evidence. Do I need to comment or just sit tight.
    All of their signage photos are taken in daylight and aren't particularly big built seen to be everywhere.
    It was a dark November night and the driver didn't see anything about paying. They offer pay by phone but again this wouldn't be seen in the dark.
    The photos don't show an obvious entrance or exit either.
    Worried this won't go in my way but parking eye don't mention anything about the golden ticket part I talked about in my appeal to popla.
    Any advice most appreciated please
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 26th Feb 18, 7:16 PM
    • 7,713 Posts
    • 7,457 Thanks
    KeithP
    You need to comment on it.

    You need to pick holes in everything they say.

    Most importantly you need to remind PoPLA that PE have not disputed your assertion that there is no keeper liability.

    I guess you didn't see this in post #3 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread:
    How can I comment on the evidence sent to POPLA, they've written a lot and shown lots of pictures of signs?!

    Look through the evidence and find things to rebut - such as the signage being unclear, illegible, sparse/nothing to show how close the car was to a sign. Or the witness statement/contract being heavily redacted, out of date, not signed by the landowner, or even just that it shows no expiry date (POPLA seem to like that).

    Your comments are to rebut the operator's case, blow by blow (but make it CONCISE) without naming the driver. Do not re-write your appeal or call it 'an appeal' or POPLA will not read it.
    There are samples of evidence 'comments' following that quoted text.
    Last edited by KeithP; 26-02-2018 at 7:19 PM.
    .
    • Beckie1406
    • By Beckie1406 26th Feb 18, 8:13 PM
    • 20 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Beckie1406
    So I have an argument that there is no pofa information on the original notice and all the photos they provide show the signs in daylight and the ticket was as night?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 27th Feb 18, 12:49 AM
    • 58,533 Posts
    • 72,030 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I've had a popla update. Pe have uploaded their evidence. Do I need to comment or just sit tight.
    All of their signage photos are taken in daylight and aren't particularly big built seen to be everywhere.
    It was a dark November night and the driver didn't see anything about paying. They offer pay by phone but again this wouldn't be seen in the dark.
    The photos don't show an obvious entrance or exit either.
    Worried this won't go in my way but parking eye don't mention anything about the golden ticket part I talked about in my appeal to popla.
    Originally posted by Beckie1406
    Comment on both issues (signs in the dark, and no keeper liability possible from a non-POFA Notice to Keeper). Keep it short and sweet, just a few lines, and be very careful NOT to imply who parked.

    What you said above is perfect to put in the POPLA Portal as comments, except obviously do not use our own term ''golden ticket''! POPLA won't know what you mean. It's a 'non-POFA Notice'.

    You will WIN a Golden Ticket POPLA appeal v PE.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 27-02-2018 at 12:52 AM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Beckie1406
    • By Beckie1406 27th Feb 18, 10:54 AM
    • 20 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Beckie1406
    how does this look:-




    o
    o



    Dear Sirs

    Ref. POPLA appeal
    In response to the "evidence pack" parking eye have submitted:
    Parking eye Have submitted a ___ point !!!8216;evidence!!!8217; pack in support of their speculative and disputed invoice. I do not intend to address each and every point they have raised in detail as their submission is clearly a quickly hashed template, much of which is repetitive or indeed irrelevant to the matter at hand.

    In making their assessment I ask the POPLA assessor to consider the following in further support of my original POPLA appeal as submitted on 5/2/18.

    1. There is no Genuine Pre-estimated of Loss breakdown included to show how they have come up with £100 - I am not sure this is possible and is any case a moot point as the burden of proof is upon Parking eye to demonstrate the loss that has occurred as a result of the alleged breach. Despite submitting this huge 'evidence' pack they have failed to do this.






    2!!!8226; The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) for the following reasons
    !!!8226; The Notice to Keeper (NTK) was delivered outside of the relevant period specified under sub-paragraph 9 (5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)
    !!!8226; The Notice to Keeper does not warn the keeper that, if after a period of 28 days, ParkingEye Ltd. has the right to to claim unpaid parking charges as specified under sub-paragraph 9 (2) (f) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
    !!!8226; The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge.

    3. There seems to be no valid copy of an unredacted contract included between Parking Eye and the Car Park, which could include information about 'money changing hands' in the contract - thus hiding information that could be relevant to the costs calculation fails to meet the strict proof of contract terms needed. In any case, the document submitted which Parking Eye claim is an unredacted
    contract is dated after the alleged breach of contract took place.
    4. Signage- The colours blue and yellow are specifically mentioned in the BPA Code of Practice as the sort of bright colour contrasts to avoid. Use of capital letters and mixing large and small font are also deemed unclear as far as signage is concerned. Parking Eye have mixed this into their signs despite the fact they appear to be new and should match the requirements of the BPA CoP.
    Furthermore it simply would not be possible to read any signs whilst in a moving car, and certainly not have read them sufficiently to have be deemed to fully understand the T&C's to which it is alleged I agreed as the registered keeper of the vehicle. Parking Parking eye's own 'evidence' photos show that a number of the signs are perpendicular to the flow of traffic,
    and could not be seen in the dark and the rain as on the night in question. All of the photos in parking Eyes evidence pack are a year old and are provided only in daylight. There is nothing to prove how close the car was parked to a sign.

    3. In the case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co
    Lord Dunedin said that a stipulation: !!!8220;!!!8230; will be held to be a penalty if the sum stipulated for is extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison with the greatest loss which could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach.''...''it is a penalty when a single lump sum is made payable by way of compensation, on the occurrence of one or more or all of several events, some of which may occasion serious and others but trifling damage".

    Furthermore I point the POPLA adjudicator to the follows verdicts from recent adjudications, circumstances which are virtually identical to this case in which the appeal was upheld on one or more of the reasons I cite in my appeal.

    In consideration of all the evidence before me, I find that the operator has failed to prove that the parking charge amount was a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

    Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed."




    I've got to look at the evidence pack again but it's so long but I expect this is intentional to make me give up
    Last edited by Beckie1406; 27-02-2018 at 8:00 PM.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 27th Feb 18, 1:38 PM
    • 7,713 Posts
    • 7,457 Thanks
    KeithP
    That is 3,974 characters. The PoPLA portal allows 2,000 characters.
    Some pruning needed.

    1. there is no mention of Genuine Pre-estimated of Loss in your original PoPLA appeal, and rightly so. You cannot introduce new evidence at this comments stage, and even if you could, Genuine Pre-estimated of Loss is definitely not a point worth introducing.

    2. You seem to be repeating the no keeper liability from your appeal.


    What does this sentence mean and why is it there:
    Furthermore I point the POPLA adjudicator to the follows verdicts from recent adjudications, circumstances which are virtually identical to this case in which the appeal was upheld on one or more of the reasons I cite in my appeal.

    Delete this sentence:
    In consideration of all the evidence before me, I find that the operator has failed to prove that the parking charge amount was a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
    Last edited by KeithP; 27-02-2018 at 1:50 PM.
    .
    • Beckie1406
    • By Beckie1406 27th Feb 18, 2:57 PM
    • 20 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Beckie1406
    I've used alot of bits from elsewhere so will take out what you have suggested.
    I've repeated about pofa as I believe I have a golden ticket from pe.
    I'll take the loss part out although I have said previously that I feel that the charge is disproportionate.
    What happens if popla reject and I lose?
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 27th Feb 18, 3:03 PM
    • 7,713 Posts
    • 7,457 Thanks
    KeithP
    Your response really should be discrediting all the PPCs evidence.

    Not reinforcing or repeating your appeal points, but rejecting the PPC's points.

    Any of your appeal points that they haven't challenged should also be highlighted.

    As you have a 'golden ticket' it is right that you should point out that PE have failed to transfer liability to the keeper.
    Last edited by KeithP; 27-02-2018 at 3:06 PM.
    .
    • Beckie1406
    • By Beckie1406 27th Feb 18, 7:40 PM
    • 20 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Beckie1406
    Dear Sirs

    Ref. POPLA appeal
    In response to the "evidence pack" parking eye have submitted:
    Parking eye Have submitted a 57 page !!!8216;evidence!!!8217; pack in support of their speculative and disputed invoice. I do not intend to address each and every point they have raised in detail as their submission is clearly a quickly hashed template, much of which is repetitive or indeed irrelevant to the matter at hand.

    In making their assessment I ask the POPLA assessor to consider the following in further support of my original POPLA appeal as submitted on 5/2/18
    1!!!8226; The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). Parking eye have failed to transfer liability to the keeper.
    2. There seems to be no valid copy of an unredacted contract included between Parking Eye and the Car Park, which could include information about 'money changing hands' in the contract - thus hiding information that could be relevant to the costs calculation fails to meet the strict proof of contract terms needed.
    3. Signage- Use of capital letters and mixing large and small font are also deemed unclear as far as signage is concerned. Parking Eye have mixed this into their signs despite the fact they appear to be new and should match the requirements of the BPA CoP.
    Furthermore it simply would not be possible to read any signs whilst in a moving car, and certainly not have read them sufficiently to have be deemed to fully understand the T&C's to which it is alleged I agreed as the registered keeper of the vehicle. Parking Parking eye's own 'evidence' photos show that a number of the signs are perpendicular to the flow of traffic, and could not be seen in the dark and the rain as on the night in question. There was no barrier down on the entrance to the car park to indicate the need to pay. It is also in the upright position on the photos. If it was down there would be an indication payment was required. All of the photos in parking Eyes evidence pack are a year old and are provided only in daylight. There is nothing to prove how close the car was parked to a sign.

    Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed."

    I think I've covered everything but their 57 pages of blurb is quite intimidating and although I'm not silly I feel a bit out of my depth
    Last edited by Beckie1406; 27-02-2018 at 8:00 PM.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 27th Feb 18, 7:51 PM
    • 18,363 Posts
    • 23,265 Thanks
    Redx
    you need to edit your posts above and remove your popla code

    NEVER write personal information on the internet , its a public service where billions of people can read it and where malice and sc@ms abound

    the main thing here is to show where they have failed in their evidence pack , on each and every main point , so show the popla assessor where they have failed (your appeal is already in and can be perused by the assessor, this stage is picking holes in the PE evidence pack)

    remove any "waffle"
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • Beckie1406
    • By Beckie1406 27th Feb 18, 8:10 PM
    • 20 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Beckie1406
    the best hole I can pick is that all their photo evidence of signs etc are in daylight and the vehicle photos at the alleged offence are in the dark. They picture the barrier up so it isn't clear you enter the car park and its the same on their daylight evidence.

    The contract they have sent is heavily redacted.

    I cannot see any information for pofa so it doesn't transfer liability to the keeper.

    Do. Just need to say this and not extend by using other posts on the forum. Is short a d sweet like this better?
    • Redx
    • By Redx 27th Feb 18, 8:36 PM
    • 18,363 Posts
    • 23,265 Thanks
    Redx
    basically , yes

    if they failed POFA2012 , say so

    if they havent transferred liability to the keeper , say so

    if the photos are daylight photos and the incident happened at night with unlit signs , say so

    if the contract is heavily redacted and not clear on its terms , say so

    but keep any "waffle" out of this rebuttal, it needs to be short and concise, pointing out their errors yet still fit into the popla portal ad mentioned earlier

    given your last post, you seem to understand exactly what is required , so no need to be "out of your depth", as you clearly are not judging by that reply in post #32

    its just a matter of getting what you said into short and concise rebuttals and observations and removing all the irrelevant waffle in that earlier post

    your signage points should be separated into several separate issues , including readibility (unclear) , being daylight photos when the incident was at night , etc
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • Beckie1406
    • By Beckie1406 28th Feb 18, 12:06 PM
    • 20 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Beckie1406
    how does this look as a final before I send:-




    · In response to the "evidence pack" parking eye have submitted:
    Parking eye Have submitted a 57 page ‘evidence’ pack in support of their speculative and disputed invoice. I do not intend to address each and every point they have raised in detail as their submission is clearly a quickly hashed template, much of which is repetitive or indeed irrelevant to the matter at hand.

    In making their assessment I ask the POPLA assessor to consider the following in further support of my original POPLA appeal as submitted on 5/2/18.



    · 1. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) for the following reasons
    • The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge.

    2. There seems to be no valid copy of an unredacted contract included between Parking Eye and the Car Park, which could include information about 'money changing hands' in the contract - thus hiding information that could be relevant to the costs calculation fails to meet the strict proof of contract terms needed. In any case, the document submitted which Parking Eye claim is an unredacted

    · 3. Signage- Specifically mentioned in the BPA Code of Practice as the use of capital letters and mixing large and small font are also deemed unclear as far as signage is concerned. Parking Eye have mixed this into their signs despite the fact they appear to be new and should match the requirements of the BPA CoP.
    Furthermore it simply would not be possible to read any signs whilst in a moving car, and certainly not have read them sufficiently to have be deemed to fully understand the T&C's to which it is alleged I agreed as the registered keeper of the vehicle. Parking Parking eye's own 'evidence' photos show that a number of the signs are perpendicular to the flow of traffic,

    · 4 These signs could not be seen in the dark and the rain as on the night in question. All of the photos in parking Eyes evidence pack are a year old and are provided only in daylight.
    · 5 There is nothing to prove how close the car was parked to a sign.
    ·
    Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed."
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 28th Feb 18, 12:25 PM
    • 58,533 Posts
    • 72,030 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    · 1. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) for the following reasons:

    The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge.
    That needs changing, because the second sentence does not answer the first. the NTK is not compliant because (if it's a golden ticket) it has nothing on the back about the POFA (and maybe it was served after 15 days? if so, say so).

    And re this, shorten it as this will not fit in the POPLA comments box:
    2. There seems to be no valid copy of an unredacted contract included between Parking Eye and the Car Park, which could include information about 'money changing hands' in the contract - thus hiding information that could be relevant to the costs calculation fails to meet the strict proof of contract terms needed. In any case, the document submitted which Parking Eye claim is an unredacted
    I think make that shorter and say 'the landowner contract is heavily redacted, and covers up much of the information about the definition of services, so this makes one wonder what they are hiding (dates and times of control? a 25 minute grace period at weekends? Who knows) and as such, it fails to comply with the BPA CoP para 7.'

    Also point out of the start date is more than 12 months ago and there is nothing to say the end date, or if the contract has been renewed, or continues into perpetuity*


    And remove the whole intro as it will not fit:
    · In response to the "evidence pack" parking eye have submitted:
    Parking eye Have submitted a 57 page 'evidence' pack in support of their speculative and disputed invoice. I do not intend to address each and every point they have raised in detail as their submission is clearly a quickly hashed template, much of which is repetitive or indeed irrelevant to the matter at hand.

    In making their assessment I ask the POPLA assessor to consider the following in further support of my original POPLA appeal as submitted on 5/2/18.
    Just say - 'here are my comments on the evidence pack'.


    *POPLA's own word - use their words back at POPLA and the penny might drop and you win!
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 08-03-2018 at 6:12 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Beckie1406
    • By Beckie1406 28th Feb 18, 1:23 PM
    • 20 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Beckie1406
    o
    o


    • Dear Sirs

      Ref. POPLA appeal
      In response to the "evidence pack" parking eye have submitted:

      In making their assessment I ask the POPLA assessor to consider the following in further support of my original POPLA appeal as submitted on 5/2/18.
    • 1!!!8226; The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) the NTK is not compliant because it has nothing on the back about the POFA.
    • 2. 'The landowner contract is heavily redacted, and covers up much of the information about the definition of services, so this makes one wonder what they are hiding (dates and times of control? a 25 minute grace period at weekends? Who knows) and as such, it fails to comply with the BPA CoP para 7.'
      The start date is more than 12 months ago and there is nothing to say the end date, or if the contract has been renewed, or continues into perpetuity
    • 3. Signage- Specifically mentioned in the BPA Code of Practice as the use of capital letters and mixing large and small font are also deemed unclear as far as signage is concerned. Parking Eye have mixed this into their signs despite the fact they appear to be new and should match the requirements of the BPA CoP.
      4.Furthermore it simply would not be possible to read any signs whilst in a moving car, and certainly not have read them sufficiently to have be deemed to fully understand the T&C's to which it is alleged I agreed as the registered keeper of the vehicle. Parking Parking eye's own 'evidence' photos show that a number of the signs are perpendicular to the flow of traffic,
    • 5. These signs could not be seen in the dark and the rain as on the night in question. All of the photos in parking Eyes evidence pack are a year old and are provided only in daylight.
    • 6. There is nothing to prove how close the car was parked to a sign


      Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed."

    Last edited by Beckie1406; 28-02-2018 at 6:28 PM.
    • Beckie1406
    • By Beckie1406 8th Mar 18, 2:42 PM
    • 20 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Beckie1406
    I just wanted to say thank you to everyone for their advice and input dealing with this parking fine.
    Popla have responded and upheld my appeal !!!128513;!!!128513;!!!128513;

    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the appellant due to either not purchasing the appropriate parking time, or by parking without a valid permit.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant states the parking operator have not complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. The appellant has questioned whether the parking operator has authority to operate on the land. The appellant states the signage at the site does not comply with the British Parking Association Code of Practice. Signs were not clear, prominent or legible. The appellant says the parking operator has not shown the individual they are pursing is the driver of the vehicle.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    I acknowledge the reason the operator has issued the PCN. The burden of proof lies with the operator to demonstrate that it has issued the PCN correctly. In this instance, I am satisfied that the keeper of the vehicle is entitled to appeal the validity of this PCN as the operator has issued a notice to the keeper’s address. I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using PoFA 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 8th Mar 18, 6:15 PM
    • 58,533 Posts
    • 72,030 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Fantastic, and no idea why ParkingEye tried to contest a Golden Ticket POPLA appeal!



    To encourages other newbies, and for posterity so your victory is more widely seen, please can you add a reply to POPLA Decisions (top of the forum) with a link to this thread, stating that your win was against ParkingEye in a ''golden ticket'' (non-POFA) case.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Liverpoolfc1967
    • By Liverpoolfc1967 9th Mar 18, 1:41 AM
    • 50 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    Liverpoolfc1967
    Help parking notice
    Parked in a station car park. Payment machine does not work, so decide to pay by phone. I get on the train and forget to make payment.

    I REMEMBER by the evening and pay for the parking in full on the evening (2 days parking, £10.10). I have train tickets to show that payment was made in full.

    I receive a ticket however due to payment being made late. What are my grounds for appeal I paid in full, just late. I don't have the picture showing their parking meter was not working.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

131Posts Today

1,359Users online

Martin's Twitter