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
    • Modyfi
    • By Modyfi 15th Apr 19, 12:00 AM
    • 9Posts
    • 2Thanks
    Modyfi
    Parkingeye Lido Margate POPLA appeal
    • #1
    • 15th Apr 19, 12:00 AM
    Parkingeye Lido Margate POPLA appeal 15th Apr 19 at 12:00 AM
    Hi all,

    Hoping that I have done this correctly as searched the forum but none have ever been asked about this location.

    Wrote an appeal to Parkingeye for it to be declined (surprise there) and now at the POPLA stage.


    Hoping someone can give my draft a read over and correct me where I've gone wrong as its lots of information in one night!

    Back story:


    Other half registered keeper
    Neither of us are driver so never passed info as to who is
    Supposedly paid 1.20 although sure we paid 1.50.
    Price is 80p for two hours and 1.50 for four.
    Parked for 3:32
    Sent first appeal and recieved letter asking her to sign and return so I can respond on her behalf as registered
    Asked why figure shows incorrectly on their system (thought they were human) and stating the poor conditions
    Recieved response saying Insuffiient time and 14 days of reduced fine (lucky me right)
    Seems i have a letter very similar to golden ticket although differs slightly by showing a section called case law but nothing stating the keeper liability.


    Hyperlink:

    Remove space

    https:// docs.google.com/document/d/1uUdgHFit1LbfDN7LT7KdB_0Ok24IubXv5z4M0dpHB08/edit?usp=sharing
    Last edited by Modyfi; 15-04-2019 at 12:10 AM.
Page 2
    • MistyZ
    • By MistyZ 16th Apr 19, 9:40 AM
    • 459 Posts
    • 839 Thanks
    MistyZ
    Landholder authority; as recently as 4 months ago ParkingEye's evidence packs for this site contained a witness statement on behalf of the landowner Stour Side Investments Limited which dated back to June 2016. The director named on this document is recorded with Companies House as having resigned in October 2016. If ParkingEye are still relying upon this document, you will have a strong argument that it provides no reliable evidence that ParkingEye still had the landowner's authority over two and a half years later.[/COLOR]
    Originally posted by Modyfi
    I'm in two minds about this .... might be best just to let them produce the document and then go in for the kill in your comments on their evidence. (If they fail to produce it that should also be a win for you).

    I'd include the pothole photos, though would explain their relevance e.g. by pointing out that the car park serves venues which are visited in the evenings yet is unfit for this purpose as it is extremely poorly lit and indeed so badly maintained that it is hazardous after dark (refer to photos).

    As there is no doubt in your minds that the full amount was paid, you do not want to suggest that the challenges of this car park led to under-payment, rather that no contract can be entered into in these circumstances. It's still really important to be clear that the full amount was paid and to include everything Coupon-mad advised in post 14 above.

    Incidentally, don't know how well you know Thanet, but there are a lot of local rags of one sort & another, quite a few free ones that are popular with visitors. I'm sure at least one of them would be willing to air this sorry tale, it's about time.
    Last edited by MistyZ; 16-04-2019 at 10:01 AM.
    • Castle
    • By Castle 16th Apr 19, 10:07 AM
    • 2,209 Posts
    • 2,997 Thanks
    Castle
    Landholder authority; as recently as 4 months ago ParkingEye's evidence packs for this site contained a witness statement on behalf of the landowner Stour Side Investments Limited which dated back to June 2016. The director named on this document is recorded with Companies House as having resigned in October 2016. If ParkingEye are still relying upon this document, you will have a strong argument that it provides no reliable evidence that ParkingEye still had the landowner's authority over two and a half years later.
    Originally posted by Modyfi
    According to Companies House, Stour Side Investments Ltd, (Co Number 08589287), didn't own any land at 30th June 2017:-
    https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08589287
    • Edna Basher
    • By Edna Basher 16th Apr 19, 11:07 AM
    • 741 Posts
    • 1,922 Thanks
    Edna Basher
    Is it worth me adding this into my document and if so how best to add it ?

    Landholder authority; as recently as 4 months ago ParkingEye's evidence packs for this site contained a witness statement on behalf of the landowner Stour Side Investments Limited which dated back to June 2016. The director named on this document is recorded with Companies House as having resigned in October 2016. If ParkingEye are still relying upon this document, you will have a strong argument that it provides no reliable evidence that ParkingEye still had the landowner's authority over two and a half years later
    No, don't mention this yet - you need to wait until after ParkingEye have submitted their evidence. If they are still including this outdated witness statement you should respond at the final stage of the process (i.e. when ParkingEye have no further opportunity to add evidence). You can also pick up on Castle's point that according to their most recent accounts, Stour Side Investments Limited don't even own any land. At this stage, just include a generic point that you do not believe that ParkingEye had the authority of the landowner.

    Given my error for mistaking the dates and thinking the reminder was a golden ticket, do i need to remove the part of non compliance of pofa in regards to keeper liability?
    I'd leave non-compliance with POFA in - specifically to highlight that "Lido (1)" or "Lido (2)" (as the case may be) does not adequately specify the relevant land.
    Last edited by Edna Basher; 16-04-2019 at 11:10 AM.
    • Castle
    • By Castle 16th Apr 19, 11:27 AM
    • 2,209 Posts
    • 2,997 Thanks
    Castle
    Further research would suggest that the car park at "Lido 2" is actually being operated by the Administrators of Stour Side Developments Ltd based on paragraph 3.5 of the latest Administrators' progress report:-
    https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/03449710/filing-history
    • Edna Basher
    • By Edna Basher 16th Apr 19, 11:48 AM
    • 741 Posts
    • 1,922 Thanks
    Edna Basher
    Excellent research, Castle.

    This probably explains why ParkingEye had resorted to including a very out-of-date witness statement in their evidence pack - I don't suppose that signing a new witness statement for ParkingEye would have been very high on the administrators' list of priorities.
    • Modyfi
    • By Modyfi 16th Apr 19, 9:51 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Modyfi
    Right, made some more of suggested adjustments to said appeal.

    - Edited non compliance with Pofa slightly and also added in section involving lido 1 and 2
    - Added section 3 summary note that ParkingEye didn't have the authority of the landowner.
    - Added two enhanced photos so floor can be seen (if only there was lighting) nearer end of document along side other evidence and a statement below it.


    As there is no doubt in your minds that the full amount was paid, you do not want to suggest that the challenges of this car park led to under-payment, rather that no contract can be entered into in these circumstances. It's still really important to be clear that the full amount was paid and to include everything Coupon-mad advised in post 14 above.
    Hopefully there isn't something I have missed? First section of the appeal states that payment was made in full and have also followed up on all points coupon-mad raised.

    Can someone confirm for me that the latest changes on shared document have updated? Just want to make sure its still accessable.

    I know Thanet fairly well as always have and still currently live here. All goes through then I will be contacting a local MP and will also contact local papers.
    • MistyZ
    • By MistyZ 17th Apr 19, 9:03 AM
    • 459 Posts
    • 839 Thanks
    MistyZ
    Hi, sorry if I worried you by referring back to Coupon-mad's advice, I see you have followed it in your appeal.

    One bit that I'm not so sure of is:

    'This appeal would like to specifically highlight subsection (b) as the received NTK was delivered by post. Furthermore, paragraph 9 (5) defines a relevant period as “..the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended’’'

    I thought the first NTK actually did arrive within the 14 day period? And there's nothing wrong with it arriving by post.

    However I realise that the most important sections are likely to be the landowner authority and signage which you've pretty much got covered. I really hope you win this, good luck.
    • Modyfi
    • By Modyfi 17th Apr 19, 9:20 AM
    • 9 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Modyfi
    No that's quite alright, I appreciate all the help and just wanted to make sure.

    Ahh ill remove that part of the section later, must of got confused when first putting the document together.

    So do you reckon once witness statement is done this is read to send off?
    • MistyZ
    • By MistyZ 17th Apr 19, 2:27 PM
    • 459 Posts
    • 839 Thanks
    MistyZ
    One small point, there's this phrase:

    'the driver that caused a parking charge to arise'.

    Yet the driver did not cause the parking charge to arise, P.E. did! So I'd just write 'the driver.'

    And another one for luck .... if you're going to show the dire state of the car park, why not get a photo of the potholes in daylight? Then show that first, labelled 'daylight image - unsafe surface' and then the dark one as it does illustrate how difficult it is even to see the hazardous areas after dark as well as further illustrating the lack of lighting.

    Otherwise I guess it's good to go. I reckon you've done a good job.
    Last edited by MistyZ; 17-04-2019 at 2:34 PM.
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

137Posts Today

987Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Have a great Easter, or a chag sameach to those like me attending Passover seder tomorrow. I?m taking all of next? https://t.co/qrAFTIpqWl

  • RT @rowlyc1980: A whopping 18 days off work for only 9 days leave! I?ll have a bit of that please......thanks @MartinSLewis for your crafty?

  • RT @dinokyp: That feeling when you realise that you have 18 days of work and only used 9 days of your annual leave! Thanks @MartinSLewis h?

  • Follow Martin