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
    • daley6522
    • By daley6522 8th Mar 18, 8:57 PM
    • 10Posts
    • 7Thanks
    daley6522
    ruthless parking eye
    • #1
    • 8th Mar 18, 8:57 PM
    ruthless parking eye 8th Mar 18 at 8:57 PM
    Dear People.

    New to this thread/forum, however have always looked on from afar with interest and now need your educated and wise help.

    My partner parked in a certain car park that is manned by cameras and had to wait patiently for a parking space as there were none available until aprox 30 mins, so sat patiently in our rented car until a space became available, the parking on the street in question was double yellowed , so no waiting in street.
    Once a space became available we parked the vehicle and paid via a phone app. Left the car in the car park and went about our business, arrived back at the car well within the the paid time and left the car park immediately.
    The said car park camera eye showed us arriving and leaving, this is not in question. after our informal appeal being basically ignored through their appeal process, we have now been told that we can go through popla as they don't recognise ombudsman services.
    This genuinely is exactly what happened and feel completely at a loss as to why they have declined the appeal.
    I am at your beck and call and really really need expert help and advise from you good people, we are willing to take this all the way as its totally disgusting bullying tactics from a parking enforcer with eyes that see what they want to

    I await your much needed help and advise.
Page 1
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 8th Mar 18, 9:03 PM
    • 58,576 Posts
    • 72,079 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #2
    • 8th Mar 18, 9:03 PM
    • #2
    • 8th Mar 18, 9:03 PM
    This genuinely is exactly what happened and feel completely at a loss as to why they have declined the appeal.
    Really? They almost ALWAYS refuse appeals about the story of what happened.

    You have a lot to learn about this ''outrageous scam'' (MPs words in Parliament last month) industry.

    They do this because they can, because it puts people on the back foot. They exist to make money from people, and people here would say there is NO element of parking management in their agenda.

    Money, money, money. It's why parking firms exist. And why we say their methods should be illegal.

    We await your response in fact, because if you read other threads you will see at POPLA stage, everyone shows us their draft POPLA appeal. We'll help you when we see you've done your reading.

    Base your POPLA appeal on the templates in the NEWBIES thread (post #3 of it).

    But before you expend PE's time on POPLA, which costs them money and means they will not cancel later, why not exhaust the usual Plan A, of landowner complaint? Many landowners cancel shedloads of PE charges, every week.

    Is this one of the usual places like Aire Street Leeds, or Tower Road Newquay, or Ilford Retail Park? Search the forum for that and the word 'POPLA' and find one someone wrote in 2017 (NOT OLDER!).

    So, let's see your draft POPLA appeal in a week or so, once you've read other threads just like your own, and read the POPLA template points in post #3 of the NEWBIES thread.

    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 08-03-2018 at 9:06 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.

    • daley6522
    • By daley6522 8th Mar 18, 9:10 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    daley6522
    • #3
    • 8th Mar 18, 9:10 PM
    • #3
    • 8th Mar 18, 9:10 PM
    Really? They almost ALWAYS refuse appeals about the story of what happened.

    You have a lot to learn about this ''outrageous scam'' (MPs words in Parliament last month) industry.

    They do this because they can, because it puts people on the back foot. They exist to make money from people, and people here would say there is NO element of parking management in their agenda.

    Money, money, money. It's why parking firms exist. And why we say their methods should be illegal.

    We await your response in fact, because if you read other threads you will see at POPLA stage, everyone shows us their draft POPLA appeal. We'll help you when we see you've done your reading.

    Base your POPLA appeal on the templates in the NEWBIES thread (post #3 of it).

    But before you expend PE's time on POPLA, which costs them money and means they will not cancel later, why not exhaust the usual Plan A, of landowner complaint? Many landowners cancel shedloads of PE charges, every week.

    Is this one of the usual places like Aire Street Leeds, or Tower Road Newquay, or Ilford Retail Park? Search the forum for that and the word 'POPLA' and find one someone wrote in 2017 (NOT OLDER!).

    So, let's see your draft POPLA appeal in a week or so, once you've read other threads just like your own, and read the POPLA template points in post #3 of the NEWBIES thread.

    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Will do thanks, your bang on the money with one of your said places
    thanks
    • Redx
    • By Redx 8th Mar 18, 9:16 PM
    • 18,376 Posts
    • 23,279 Thanks
    Redx
    • #4
    • 8th Mar 18, 9:16 PM
    • #4
    • 8th Mar 18, 9:16 PM
    there is no profit to be made from acceptance, hence the rejection

    the circumstances are largely irrelevant , its not about parking , its about profiteering

    its that simple
    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
    • The Slithy Tove
    • By The Slithy Tove 8th Mar 18, 9:33 PM
    • 3,312 Posts
    • 4,840 Thanks
    The Slithy Tove
    • #5
    • 8th Mar 18, 9:33 PM
    • #5
    • 8th Mar 18, 9:33 PM
    It's good to know that PE's own court cases work against them.

    This one finds them being told that waiting for a space is not parking: http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/waiting-for-space-is-not-parking.html. Make sure you quote this case in your POPLA appeal.

    And their own win against Beavis works against them, as the Court of Appeal judgement explicitly said it did not apply to pay-per-hour type car parks, which this is.
    • daley6522
    • By daley6522 8th Mar 18, 9:39 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    daley6522
    • #6
    • 8th Mar 18, 9:39 PM
    • #6
    • 8th Mar 18, 9:39 PM
    Reply to The Slithy Tove


    thank you so much
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 8th Mar 18, 9:46 PM
    • 9,520 Posts
    • 9,301 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #7
    • 8th Mar 18, 9:46 PM
    • #7
    • 8th Mar 18, 9:46 PM
    This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences.

    Parking Eye, Smart and a smaller company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They nearly always lose) and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P.

    The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

    http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

    and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind most of these companies may well be put out of business by Christmas.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • daley6522
    • By daley6522 8th Mar 18, 11:36 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    daley6522
    • #8
    • 8th Mar 18, 11:36 PM
    • #8
    • 8th Mar 18, 11:36 PM
    Hi all,

    How does this look for the popla appeal

    Appeal re POPLA code: 606xxxxxxx !!!8211; xxxxxxx xxxxxxx v ParkingEye Ltd

    I am writing to you to lodge a formal appeal against a parking charge notice sent to
    my employer as registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

    Grounds to refuse to deal with a dispute
    13.The body may only refuse to deal with a domestic dispute or a cross-border dispute which it is competent to deal with on one of the following grounds!!!8212;
    (e) the consumer has not submitted the complaint to the body within the time period specified by the body, provided that such time period is not less than 12 months from the date upon which the trader has given notice to the consumer that the trader is unable to resolve the complaint with the consumer;

    And since none of the other conditions are met in section 13, I respectfully request that you consider my appeal as the uk government has stated that alternative dispute resolution must be allowed for not less than one year from the date upon which the trader gave notice that they are unable to resolve the complaint.

    I contend that I am not liable for this parking charge on the basis of the below points:

    The Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the wording used.

    ParkingEye have failed to fulfil the conditions which state that the keeper must be served with a compliant NTK in accordance with schedule 4 paragraph 9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

    The PCN fails to identify the facts that caused a charge to arise and fails to describe
    the unpaid parking charges that they allege were unpaid at the machine.

    9(2)
    !!!8217;!!!8217;The notice must -
    [b] inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the
    specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;

    [c] describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the end of that period, the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable;!!!8217;!!!8217;

    This NTK stated that !!!8216;!!!8217;either!!!8217;!!!8217; there was not appropriate parking time purchased !!!8216;!!!8217;or!!!8217;!!!8217; the
    vehicle remained longer than permitted (neither of which are !!!8216;facts!!!8217.
    This NTK fails to describe those parking charges which they contend remain !!!8216;unpaid!!!8217; by the driver.



    Grace periods were not applied

    The BPA Code of Practice (CoP) makes it mandatory for operators to allow grace periods at the start and end of parking, before enforcement action can be taken.

    The CoP states:
    13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable !!!8216;grace period!!!8217; in which to decide if they are going to stay or go.

    13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the END of the parking period should be a MINIMUM of 10 minutes.

    For the avoidance of doubt, the second 'grace' period of at least ten minutes (not a maximum, but a minimum) is in addition to the separate, first grace/observation period that must be allowed to allow the time taken to arrive, find a parking bay, lock the car and go over to any machine to read " observe the signage terms, before paying.

    Kelvin Reynolds of the BPA says there is a difference between !!!8216;grace!!!8217; periods and !!!8216;observation!!!8217; periods in parking and that good practice allows for this:

    britishparking[dot]co.u k/News/ good-car-parking-practice-includes-grace-periods

    !!!8220;An observation period is the time when an enforcement officer should be able to determine what the motorist intends to do once in the car park. The BPA!!!8217;s guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator!!!8217;s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket,!!!8221; he explains.

    !!!8220;No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.!!!8221;

    The BPA!!!8217;s guidance defines the !!!8216;grace period!!!8217; as the time allowed after permitted or paid-for parking has expired but before any kind of enforcement takes place.

    The ANPR photos on the PCN show an arrival time of XXXXXX and a departure time of XXXXXX !!!8211; an alleged overstay of XX minutes.

    The Aire Street Leeds Car park is a busy location which has a train station, popular shops and it is located in the city centre of Leeds. It is also an extremely rough uneven surface, littered with potholes and loose stones and gravel with no parking bays marked, making it difficult for a driver to manoeuvre safely and find a parking space.

    The same arguments relating to difficulty in arriving are made as to the difficulty of leaving the car park at the end of any stay.

    Taking both BPA 'Observation' and 'Grace' Periods into account, considering the type and location of this busy car park, XX minutes is perfectly within scope of both the MINIMUM grace periods taken together and so I contend that the PCN was not properly given.


    Inappropriate use of ANPR technology

    Paragraph 21.1 of the CoP advises operators that they may use ANPR camera technology to manage parking in private car parks, as long as they do this in a ''reasonable, consistent and transparent manner''. The CoP requires that signs must tell drivers that the operator is using this technology and what it will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.

    These signs do not comply with these requirements because the car park signage failed to notify the driver what the ANPR data would be used for, which is a 'failure to identify its commercial intent', contrary to the BPA CoP and Consumer law.

    Specifically missing (or otherwise illegible, buried in small print) is the vital information that the driver's arrival time would be calculated from the moment the car entered the car park. It is not stated that the cameras are not for security (as one would expect from a mere camera icon) but are there in order to calculate 'total stay'.

    In fact, any reasonable driver would believe that the parking time would begin from the time on the ticket printed when parking was purchased by the driver or at the very least a proprietary space being made available.
    I refer to Parking Eye v Mrs X Case No: 3JD08399.
    On re-reading Mrs X!!!8217;s witness statement I see at paragraph 8 she dealt with the issue of the busy-ness of the car park, and said: !!!8220;It is likely that my vehicle was not parked at all, but on this occasion it is likely that my vehicle was driving around the car park with the driver looking for a suitable spot to park, prior to leaving.!!!8221;
    Perhaps it is unfair to say, therefore, that the first occasion upon which the issue of circling was raised today, it does appear to have been raised as a likelihood, I put it no stronger than that, in the witness statement of Mrs X, which is dated the 28th January.
    18. There are other references in that witness statement to the busyness of that car park in terms of, particularly, a day in August. I am not sure that necessarily assists me in ascertaining whether or not Mrs X parked on this occasion.
    19. Of course it is the case that the Claimant cannot offer indisputable evidence that the Defendant did park because all they are able to offer in terms of evidence is the time when the car entered the car park and when the car left the car park, and they are 31 minutes apart and although Mr X attempted to raise some issue with regard to the reliability of that evidence none of that was put in the Defence and I accept that that was the period that the car was within the boundaries of the car park.
    20. The Defendants also referred to there being a one hour free period at other times of the year, and suggested that this applied on this occasion as this would be classed as spring. It was pointed out by Miss Vipond, quite fairly, that this was not an issue raised in the defence.
    21. Mr Langham!!!8217;s statement deals with the issue of the different tariffs at the different times of year, and in his statement indicates that Parking Eye!!!8217;s signage at this site alternates between summer and winter tariffs. During winter tariffs motorists are allowed one hour free parking. The signage is not different in spring or autumn, and at this time summer tariffs were in place. There is no evidence that suggests otherwise and it seems likely that in late May that would be classed as "summer".
    22. The Defendant made a point that the signage is not clear and that the small writing that is referred to as the terms and conditions may not be visible as one is in one!!!8217;s car, it seems to me that it is clear that one must pay for parking, and the Defendant herself, in her own witness statement, says that she was aware of parking charges locally and makes an appropriate allowance for that in her holiday budget. There is no suggestion by the Defendant that it was a free car park.
    23. Reference was made to the provision of a grace period of 20 minutes. This is referred to in particular by the Defendant, in an excerpt from a local newspaper, and indeed it is also conceded by the Claimant that there is that grace period.
    24. There is no evidence before me that this is brought to the attention of anybody visiting the site and certainly not on any of the signs that I have been referred to, and as I say, the only reference to it was in a newspaper article and in the statements that have been filed for the purposes of these proceedings.
    25. This is perhaps particularly pertinent in this case, where the Defendants are said to have circled the car park, not to have parked, and to have left without parking within the 31 minutes.
    26. It seems to me I must establish my position in respect of the Defendants!!!8217; evidence that they did not park, and circled the car park. Is it reasonable that Mrs X would circle for 31 minutes and then leave?
    27. The Claimant, in response to her witness statement, in which it was asserted that she thought it was likely that that had happened, says, and this is Mr Langham!!!8217;s statement of the 30th : !!!8220;Parking Eye operates a fair and reasonable grace period that allows motorists to enter and exit the car park. Parking Eye considers it likely that the vehicle was parked. It is unlikely that the driver stayed within the car park for 31 minutes without parking.!!!8221;
    28. There is reference, to parking in the defence, and I think that is perhaps the only reference to parking, but that is made in respect of the Defendant being unable to admit or deny the precise time she was parked at the beach. She said she has no recollection of this. That case was on the basis, it seems to me, of the fact that she could not recall what happened on that occasion.
    29. There is no way of the Claimant disputing whether or not the Defendant parked or not, and it seems to me that it is likely that the car park may well be busy and that it might be necessary to circle for some time before finding a space, and it seems to me that the provision of a grace period accepts that to some extent, that that might be necessary.
    30. Is it reasonable to do that for 31 minutes and then leave? One might look at it the other way. Is it likely that having gone to the car park during Whit half term week to find a space that one would park and then leave within 31 minutes? It seems to be more likely that the 31 minutes were spent driving around the car park looking for a space, bearing in mind this was Whit half term in May and therefore, it seems to me, more likely to have been busy than on other occasions and I accept, therefore, what the Defendant says about that.
    31. I accept, therefore, that the Defendant did not park. That is not the end of the matter because the Claimants say that even if they did not park they are still caught by the terms and conditions, and Mr Langham, in his statement, says at paragraph 6, this is his statement of the 31st January: !!!8220;Terms and conditions are clearly set out on the signage. Here it states !!!8216;This is a paid parking car par, please enter full correct vehicle registration into the payment machine when purchasing your ticket. Failure to comply with terms and conditions will result in a parking charge of 100!!!8217;. We can confirm the signage was in place on the site at the date of the parking event, there were also various warning signs on site reminding motorists that ANPR cameras are in use and payment can be made at the end of stay.!!!8221; And paragraph 7: !!!8220;Once it had been confirmed the vehicle had broken the terms and conditions on the signage a fee paying application was made to DVLA.!!!8221;
    32. I have had referred to me numerous copies of the signage on that occasion and whilst I can see reference to what Mr Langham says on, I think it is sign 1(a), which says: !!!8220;By parking, waiting or otherwise remaining in the area!!!8221; That is in quite small writing at the bottom, as the terms and conditions.
    33. As I have already indicated there can be no dispute this is a paying car park. It cannot be said that the signs are unclear in that regard, but would somebody circling the car park know that they were liable to pay by being in the car park for, as Mr Langham states, longer than 20 minutes? Well I have no evidence to suggest they would know that.
    34. There is another sign, sign 1(e), which is the sign that says: !!!8220;An automatic number plate recognition system is operating on site for the purposes of managing the car park.!!!8221; The enlarged version of that provides in the small writing at the bottom: !!!8220;By parking in this car park!!!8221; It does not refer to waiting or otherwise remaining in this car park.
    35. It seems to me a customer who enters that car park, cannot find a space and leaves the car park is not aware that if they are doing that for more than 20 minutes they are liable to a charge. It seems to me that the signage makes it clear that if you park you are liable to pay a charge.
    36. The difficulty for the Claimant here is they cannot prove whether this car was parked or not and I have got to consider the matter on the balance of probabilities.
    37. On that balance of probabilities, as I have indicated, I am satisfied the Defendant was not parked and I am not satisfied that it was clear to the Defendants that by parking or entering or remaining within the area covered by Parking Eye Ltd they were liable for a charge, that the signage does not make that clear in my view unless one gets out of the car, walks up to it, by which point it seems to me one would be parked, and even if this was not the case, even if there were signs saying that, I cannot see that a charge for driving around a car park can in any way be a genuine pre-estimate of loss as opposed to actually parking.
    38. For those reasons, in this case, I find that the claim has failed and the Claimant has not satisfied me. As I say every case is dealt with on its merits and the vast majority of the documents submitted have been completely irrelevant and unhelpful in this case, it turns on the evidence here and that particular piece of evidence in this case was that whether or not the Defendant was parked. It seems to me that that was fundamental here and was raised in the statement of the end of January.
    39. Those are my reasons, I therefore dismiss this claim.

    The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

    There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

    In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:

    /imgur.com/a/AkMCN

    In the Beavis case, the 85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.

    This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

    Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background.

    It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

    Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':

    (1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.

    (2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

    So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up.

    I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.


    Regards
    Last edited by daley6522; 09-03-2018 at 12:11 AM.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 8th Mar 18, 11:53 PM
    • 7,728 Posts
    • 7,483 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #9
    • 8th Mar 18, 11:53 PM
    • #9
    • 8th Mar 18, 11:53 PM
    I'm a bit puzzled by the reference to your employer.

    Are you appealing as the keeper?
    Are you appealing on behalf of the registered keeper?
    You appear not to be appealing as the driver because you mention PoFA and 'transfer of liability'.

    What are those paragraphs 'Grounds to refuse to deal with a dispute' all about? Not seen those in a PoPLA appeal before.
    .
    • daley6522
    • By daley6522 8th Mar 18, 11:58 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    daley6522
    I'm a bit puzzled by the reference to your employer.

    Are you appealing as the keeper?
    Are you appealing on behalf of the registered keeper?
    You appear not to be appealing as the driver because you mention PoFA and 'transfer of liability'.

    What are those paragraphs 'Grounds to refuse to deal with a dispute' all about? Not seen those in a PoPLA appeal before.
    Originally posted by KeithP
    To tell you the truth I just copied a popla appeal document already posted and added a bit, its a company car, so we are the driver not owner.
    This is all very nervy stuff
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 9th Mar 18, 12:08 AM
    • 7,728 Posts
    • 7,483 Thanks
    KeithP
    OK, firstly you need to edit your most recent post to remove clues to the identity of the driver.

    The last part of your second sentence should perhaps look something like:
    ...its a company car, so we are the day to day keeper, not owner or registered keeper.
    .
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Mar 18, 12:08 AM
    • 58,576 Posts
    • 72,079 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    You are the 'lessee/hirer' and would have won at POPLA on that basis...if the driver had not been admitted in the appeal. Should have chosen 'lessee/hirer' when appealing online to PE.

    Sounds like the first appeal blabbed about who was driving? Ouch...
    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.

    • daley6522
    • By daley6522 9th Mar 18, 12:13 AM
    • 10 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    daley6522
    OK, firstly you need to edit your most recent post to remove clues to the identity of the driver.

    The last part of your second sentence should perhaps look something like:
    ...its a company car, so we are the day to day keeper, not owner or registered keeper.
    Originally posted by KeithP
    Thanks keithP, i presume you mean times etc(now removed)
    • daley6522
    • By daley6522 9th Mar 18, 12:17 AM
    • 10 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    daley6522
    You are the 'lessee/hirer' and would have won at POPLA on that basis...if the driver had not been admitted in the appeal. Should have chosen 'lessee/hirer' when appealing online to PE.

    Sounds like the first appeal blabbed about who was driving? Ouch...
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    yes I think the person in question did admit to driving the vehicle, I'll check tomorrow, however surely like in the case of parking eye v mrs x, driving around looking for a space isnt classed as parked
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 9th Mar 18, 12:23 AM
    • 35,917 Posts
    • 20,195 Thanks
    Quentin
    Thanks keithP, i presume you mean times etc(now removed)
    Originally posted by daley6522
    No.


    You are advised never to reveal who was driving (though from #14 it now looks too late to worry about this!)
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 9th Mar 18, 12:25 AM
    • 7,728 Posts
    • 7,483 Thanks
    KeithP
    Thanks keithP, i presume you mean times etc(now removed)
    Originally posted by daley6522
    No.

    I suggested editing your most recent post - post #11.

    But it is not important if the driver is already disclosed.
    .
    • daley6522
    • By daley6522 9th Mar 18, 12:25 AM
    • 10 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    daley6522
    No.


    You are advised never to reveal who was driving (though from #14 it now looks too late to worry about this!)
    Originally posted by Quentin
    I just hope it's not a case of "the horse has bolted"
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Mar 18, 12:27 AM
    • 58,576 Posts
    • 72,079 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    yes I think the person in question did admit to driving the vehicle, I'll check tomorrow, however surely like in the case of parking eye v mrs x, driving around looking for a space isnt classed as parked
    Originally posted by daley6522
    It is 'total stay' as defined by ParkingEye (and POPLA might agree).

    I am saying this was 100% winnable (because the PCN would have been first sent to the company, who then named the lessee, and PE always muck up that paperwork). The lessee - almost certainly - would not have lost at POPLA, if they'd come here first and followed advice on wording.

    I just hope it's not a case of "the horse has bolted"
    Originally posted by daley6522
    Sorry but it is. I warn you now, it is far less certain due to not appealing as lessee/hirer.
    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.

    • daley6522
    • By daley6522 9th Mar 18, 12:40 AM
    • 10 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    daley6522
    It is 'total stay' as defined by ParkingEye (and POPLA might agree).

    I am saying this was 100% winnable (because the PCN would have been first sent to the company, who then named the lessee, and PE always muck up that paperwork). The lessee - almost certainly - would not have lost at POPLA, if they'd come here first and followed advice on wording.


    Sorry but it is. I warn you now, it is far less certain due to not appealing as lessee/hirer.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    are you saying cough up the 60 now then? The PCN was actually forwarded by our employer not a new one with named drivers from PE
    Last edited by daley6522; 09-03-2018 at 12:44 AM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Mar 18, 1:00 AM
    • 58,576 Posts
    • 72,079 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    are you saying cough up the 60 now then?
    Never. I am always hopeful that over 95% of POPLA appeals here will work, and have done for years. But it's so sad to read the initial appeal threw away the slam-dunk 100% win handed to you on a plate.

    The PCN was actually forwarded by our employer not a new one with named drivers from PE
    Lessee should have asked the employer to name them as lessee (with address) then waited for their own copy, then won at POPLA with no sweat.

    Next time!


    THIS TIME, you are going to have to sweat a bit, as it's not 100% now.

    I repeat, I never say pay ParkingEye and you may well win on one of the other template appeal points already written for you to use (NEWBIES thread post #3), or by copying one someone already wrote in the past few months only, about the same location.

    Easy to find by searching the place & the word POPLA, on this forum, and find one no older than 2017. Show us your draft and don't be coy about the location, because we know about them (signs, etc.).
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 09-03-2018 at 1:03 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.

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

172Posts Today

1,876Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Ah these care free days of watching #ENG score 5 goals in the first half of a World Cup match. It reminds me of... Never.

  • Then it should be. It's not some accident. It's deliberate grappling https://t.co/UxVTuUSNio

  • Penalty yes but time someone was sent off for these wrestling moves #WorldCup

  • Follow Martin