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
    • kryptonite786
    • By kryptonite786 4th Jul 18, 12:30 AM
    • 40Posts
    • 12Thanks
    kryptonite786
    ParkingEye Rebuttal
    • #1
    • 4th Jul 18, 12:30 AM
    ParkingEye Rebuttal 4th Jul 18 at 12:30 AM
    Hi All

    I am helping a friend who received a PCN from Parking Eye, they have admitted to being the driver whilst using the gym where the PCN was received. They have also sent a brief appeal PE and to POPLA (without utilising information on forums) and are now at the rebuttal stage.

    In the appeal to PE and POPLA evidence of the entrance and exit log times at the gym were shown. I believe you have to enter a vehicle registration on entry, Im not sure if this was done or not at the time.

    Looking at the evidence pack the signs do not match the signs that are currently there, they are totally different, also I have not noted any entrance signs. The ANPR photos clearly match the log times of entrance at the gym. There is also no witness statement of authority to issue PCN's on the land. I just wanted some guidance on what the best points would be to use and if they are relevant, as for PoFa can this be used as the driver has been admitted.

    Many Thanks
Page 1
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 4th Jul 18, 1:38 AM
    • 63,826 Posts
    • 76,450 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #2
    • 4th Jul 18, 1:38 AM
    • #2
    • 4th Jul 18, 1:38 AM
    There is also no witness statement of authority to issue PCN's on the land.
    They don't have to, if a weakish POPLA appeal was lodged without mentioning that you wanted to see evidence of 'landowner authority'.

    You can't add points now that you didn't have in the POPLA appeal itself.

    Looking at the evidence pack the signs do not match the signs that are currently there, they are totally different, also I have not noted any entrance signs.
    Would be a good point of the POPLA appeal had included photos of the signs that are really there. Trouble is, again, your friend can't add photos/new evidence now.

    I would pick on the dates on their photos of the signs, and use that to rebut that these are the actual signs in 2018. Old pictures are no evidence at all.

    And I would take a good look to see if they've included any picture of this elusive 'keypad/iPad' located as they suggest, inside the Gym at Reception...usually they don't - so you point out that there is no evidence that there was a keypad in the Gym because PE have failed to show any photos of it, and you believe that no such keypad existed on the material date.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • kryptonite786
    • By kryptonite786 4th Jul 18, 9:39 AM
    • 40 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    kryptonite786
    • #3
    • 4th Jul 18, 9:39 AM
    Sticky Situation
    • #3
    • 4th Jul 18, 9:39 AM
    I think were in a sticky situation......

    The trouble is the signs in the evidence pack don't mention the gym users have access to the car park as it states the residents have access, however the correct signs that are actually there do say that the gym users have access providing a registration number is entered in the keypad. Does this mean POPLA will go with the incorrect signs in the evidence pack as I cannot provide new evidence?

    Is there any possible way I can include the correct signage? Also can I use the entrance log times provided by the gym as a strong point in the rebuttal

    In terms of the dates of the signs, it is dated 1/03/18 can I still rebut this as being old?

    And I would take a good look to see if they've included any picture of this elusive 'keypad/iPad' located as they suggest, inside the Gym at Reception...usually they don't - so you point out that there is no evidence that there was a keypad in the Gym because PE have failed to show any photos of it, and you believe that no such keypad existed on the material date.
    will definitely use this point
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 4th Jul 18, 10:31 AM
    • 63,826 Posts
    • 76,450 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #4
    • 4th Jul 18, 10:31 AM
    • #4
    • 4th Jul 18, 10:31 AM
    In terms of the dates of the signs, it is dated 1/03/18 can I still rebut this as being old?
    You can if the signs have changed recently.

    The only way to include a photo or two with a SHORT rebuttal (please don't try to paper the cracks of a weak appeal with a long spiel, POPLA will dig their heels in if you try) is to email it to POPLA and you/the friend already has their email addy.

    I would make it short and snappy and say you are not adding new appeal points but are horrified to see the PPC has put into their evidence pack the OLD photos of signs in March, when there was no wording about gym users being exempted. The regime has changed very recently to exempt gym users, but the evidence pack has failed to:

    - show the current signs that reflect this (images attached to assist POPLA)

    - show that additional signs were there to warn people familiar with the car park, about a new requirement to input a VRN

    - show that there even was any keypad in the gym, because there wasn't at that time and the enforcement started before the keypad was there (POPLA should not also, the absence of a picture of the 'keypad' in situ at the gym, in the evidence pack, and draw the obvious conclusion).

    This one might be still lost at POPLA stage but is defendable in small claims and not a risk to your friend's credit rating or wealth. No huge costs, and it sounds like they have a case but failed to put it properly to POPLA.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • kryptonite786
    • By kryptonite786 4th Jul 18, 11:06 AM
    • 40 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    kryptonite786
    • #5
    • 4th Jul 18, 11:06 AM
    Doctored Photograph
    • #5
    • 4th Jul 18, 11:06 AM
    horrified to see the PPC has put into their evidence pack the OLD photos of signs in March
    The gym has been operating for over 2 years and I can pretty much guarantee the signs 'timestamped' 01/03/18 by PE is doctored with an incorrect timestamp, is there anything I can put forward in regards to this?

    Thanks for all your help
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 4th Jul 18, 11:18 AM
    • 63,826 Posts
    • 76,450 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #6
    • 4th Jul 18, 11:18 AM
    • #6
    • 4th Jul 18, 11:18 AM
    Not for this POPLA appeal, no.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • kryptonite786
    • By kryptonite786 4th Jul 18, 4:11 PM
    • 40 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    kryptonite786
    • #7
    • 4th Jul 18, 4:11 PM
    Signs
    • #7
    • 4th Jul 18, 4:11 PM
    Just came back from the car park and have realised the signs they have used in their evidence pack are from the residents floor, however the gym parking is on a separate floor. Furthermore, the signage plan shows basement floor 1 however, there is more than 1 floor.

    Is that a point to make in the rebuttal?
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 4th Jul 18, 4:17 PM
    • 3,769 Posts
    • 6,178 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    • #8
    • 4th Jul 18, 4:17 PM
    • #8
    • 4th Jul 18, 4:17 PM
    I'd write to PE and point out their "mistake" in the bundle they have supplied to POPLA. PE tend to use a POPLA win as a rubber stamp for any claim they make so it would be useful to call them out as soon as you can. Invite them to withdraw their POPLA case so as not to "compromise their standing" with their inadvertent error.

    They may do the usual childish response but it will be something up your sleeve for later. Get proof you sent it.

    Edit: PE may think they can be casual with POPLA since they have paid for it. Courts are a different kettle.
    Last edited by IamEmanresu; 04-07-2018 at 4:26 PM.
    If you want to win - avoid losing first. Here are a few examples
    1. Failing to Acknowledge or Defend https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5760415
    2. Template defences that say nothing https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5818671&page=5#86
    3. Forgetting about the Witness Statement
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 4th Jul 18, 4:37 PM
    • 63,826 Posts
    • 76,450 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #9
    • 4th Jul 18, 4:37 PM
    • #9
    • 4th Jul 18, 4:37 PM
    Indeed but email PE, never a letter in the post (put the PCN xxxxxx/xxxxxx in the subject line):

    info@parkingeye.co.uk

    and if you lose at POPLA, then hold your nerve. When PE send a Letter before Claim, email the other team:

    enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk

    and point out the POPLA evidence pack was either negligently or deliberately wrong.

    Just came back from the car park and have realised the signs they have used in their evidence pack are from the residents floor, however the gym parking is on a separate floor. Furthermore, the signage plan shows basement floor 1 however, there is more than 1 floor.

    Is that a point to make in the rebuttal?
    Originally posted by kryptonite786
    Yes! Telling POPLA that the car was not in the residents basement car park, and that the Gym car park has completely different signage and terms, and that PE have got the location and signage terms completely wrong in their evidence pack.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 04-07-2018 at 4:40 PM.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • kryptonite786
    • By kryptonite786 5th Jul 18, 11:11 PM
    • 40 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    kryptonite786
    Ive just drafted up the rebuttal to Parking 'Lies' evidence pack, I appreciate your comments if possible and thank you for all your guidance thus far.

    Address



    POPLA Reference Number:
    PCN Ref:


    Dear Sir/Madam,

    I would like to make the following representations on the evidence received from Parking Eye. Please ensure this is put in front of the assessor;

    a) The time permitted for Pure Gym members is 2.5 hours as stated in the evidence pack ‘Time in Car Park’ (Section B, page 5) the time shows “1hr 32mins and 28seconds” which is within the time frame endorsed.

    b) The entrance date/time logged by the ANPR system detailed in the evidence pack ‘Date/Time In’ (Section B, page 5) clearly registers with the evidence provided by myself in the initial appeal, also shown in the evidence pack (Section E, page 18) i.e. the entrance time into the car park marries up with the entrance time into Pure Gym as detailed in the journal evidence provided by the gym.

    c) I would like to clarify I am not adding new appeal points however, I am horrified to see major flaws with the signage provided in the evidence pack (Section F, page 26-36) as follows:

    I. The signage plan indicates an entrance/exit sign exists however this is non-existent.
    II. More importantly, this is a multi-story car park however, the signage plan indicates a single floor (Basement Level -1) as the entire car park, this floor is for residents only. The vehicle was parked on (Basement Level -2), this is the floor dedicated to Pure Gym members and as such has completely different signage and terms. Therefore, the PPC in question has got the location and signage completely wrong in their evidence pack. I have provided images date/time stamped where appropriate below to highlight the correct signage.


    [Images]


    III. The images of the signage provided by the PPC date stamped on ‘01/03/2018’ reflect old evidence as the PCN was issued after this date. Therefore, they do not reflect the current signage currently in place. They have also not shown images of the signs, which are unlit, in the dark as it was for the driver.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 6th Jul 18, 12:34 AM
    • 63,826 Posts
    • 76,450 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I don't think you need III at all, because you've already said the signs are from the wrong floor of the multi storey, so they are not even 'old evidence'.

    Here, I would suggest:
    Therefore, the PPC in question operator has got the location and signage completely wrong in their evidence pack. I have provided images date/time stamped where appropriate below to highlight the correct signage located at the Gym parking floor of this multi-storey car park.

    I remind POPLA that Mr Gallagher, the Lead Adjudicator, has said in a previous ParkingEye case, that where an appellant is proving a point made in the original appeal about signage, by supplying final images in direct response to false signage evidence in the evidence pack, the Assessor must consider all photos that prove the evidence pack to be false, and cannot dismiss the images attached to the final comments because in this specific situation, the true signage pictures are not new evidence.


    [Images]
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • kryptonite786
    • By kryptonite786 6th Jul 18, 1:23 PM
    • 40 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    kryptonite786
    Thanks Coupon-mad, will get this sent off with the amendments and fingers crossed. I will keep the thread updated with the result
    • kryptonite786
    • By kryptonite786 1st Aug 18, 9:24 PM
    • 40 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    kryptonite786
    Update
    Hi All

    Update on the POPLA appeal, unfortunately was unsuccessful.

    From the comments the assessor did not look at the correct signage provided in the rebuttal, instead reviewed the incorrect signage provided by PE.

    Anything I can do about this or ride out the debt collectors letters until I get an LBCCC and court claim?

    See appeal decision below:

    DecisionUnsuccessful
    Assessor NameAlexandra Roby
    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator’s case is that the appellant did not gain the appropriate permit/authorisation.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant’s case is that he is a member of the gym and was using its facilities that day. As a member of the gym, the appellant advises that he is entitled to use the car park for two and a half hours for free. Out of human error, the appellant states that he may have forgotten to register his vehicle to park, or entered his vehicle registration number incorrectly. Despite this, he believes that he should not have to pay the Parking Charge Notice (PCN). The appellant has provided an email from the gym to confirm that he was using the gym between the times that he parked.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    The terms and conditions of the site state: “Permit holders only. This area is for the use of Hastings staff and St George’s Heights resident permit holders only. Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Chare of: £100”. The operator has issued the PCN as the appellant did not gain the appropriate permit/authorisation. Images from the operator’s Automatic Number Plate Recognition system have been provided, which show that the appellant’s vehicle entered the car park at 06:27 and exited at 08:00 on the day in question, staying for a total of one hour and 32 minutes. A system generated print out has also been provided, showing that the appellant’s vehicle was not registered to park at the site that day. The appellant’s case is that he is a member of the gym and was using its facilities that day. As a member of the gym, the appellant advises that he is entitled to use the car park for two and a half hours for free. Out of human error, the appellant states that he may have forgotten to register his vehicle to park, or entered his vehicle registration number incorrectly. Despite this, he believes that he should not have to pay the PCN. When parking on private land, the motorist forms a contract with the operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage at the site sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. Therefore upon entry to the car park, it is the duty of the motorist to review and comply with the terms and conditions when deciding to park. While I appreciate the appellant’s version of events and his evidence, upon review of the signage, the car park does not appear to be for gym members. It clearly states that the car park is for Hasting staff and St George’s Heights residents. Regardless, the appellant was not registered to park at the site that day. Ultimately, it is a motorist’s responsibility to ensure they adhere to the terms and conditions of a site when parking on it. As the appellant did not gain the appropriate permit/authorisation, he has failed to comply. As such, I conclude that the PCN was issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.
    • kryptonite786
    • By kryptonite786 30th Oct 18, 5:04 PM
    • 40 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    kryptonite786
    Lbccc
    Hi All

    So it's been a while since the unsuccessful POPLA decision where Parking Lie used the wrong pictures of the car park in order to win the POPLA appeal....anyway..

    Also the Gym have emailed Parking Lie to cancel the parking notice (they originally said they couldn't), they also said PE had issues with the ANPR cameras during the time period I received the ticket as others also had various issues receiving parking notices.

    In the meantime I now have a LBCCC, I have written a first draft to respond, please can someone have a look at this and let me know if this is ok.

    Thank you for your letter of “Letter before county court claim”.
    I require you to comply with your obligations by sending me the following information/documents:
    1. an explanation of the cause of action
    2. whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
    3. whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
    4. what the details of the claim are (where it is claimed the car was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated, what contractual breach (if any) is being claimed)
    5. a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim
    6. a copy of any alleged contract with the driver
    7. a plan showing where any signs were displayed
    8. details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)
    9. If they have added anything on to the original charge, what that represents and how it has been calculated.

    I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. I also need it in order to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).

    If you does not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) – Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on you and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13 ,15(b) and (c) and 16.

    Until you have complied with this obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for you to issue proceedings. Should you do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.

    Yours faithfully
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

90Posts Today

1,535Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @laurawithers84: @MartinSLewis Our school is going to use your book for our new finance fortnight for year 8 students. We thought we wou?

  • RT @katiejane13uk: ????????IMPORTANT - CALLING ALL LEASEHOLDERS TO COMPLETE???????? @mhclg Leasehold Reform Consultation closes this month. This is the?

  • Just sent a text about postgrad loans. My Swype text auto-corrected it to pothead loans. Does it know something I don't?

  • Follow Martin