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
    • 18Posts
    • 11Thanks
    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 3
    • MistyZ
    • By MistyZ 27th May 19, 8:54 AM
    • 1,047 Posts
    • 2,101 Thanks
    MistyZ
    FWIW the most recent Progress Report (Castle's link) states that Paul Eley was 'Director of the company from 11 August 2014 to 14 June 2017'.

    I would make this point even more clearly if possible. At the moment you've got the two sentences about the signature separated by the 'Easily forged' bit. How about:

    Letter of Authority is dated 02/06/16 so is 3 years old. No expiry date. Signature is completely redacted. Text below signature states it is that of Paul Eley. Paul Eley resigned his directorship on 14th June '17. I conclude ... etc.'

    Please double check P.Eley's resignation date to see if you agree with me.

    Some words are worth repeating for emphasis even with the tight character count and italics or capitals will indeed help emphasise points as long as they're not over-used.

    You can lose some more words, cut 'the' where possible e.g. from 'The Site Layout Plan', 'The Notice to Keeper'. I'd cut 'Dear Assessor' and go straight for a heading of

    P.E.'s Evidence pack claims/states:
    - insufficient time purchased
    - that they have written authority to operate at Lido 1
    - signs are clear & car headlights would illuminate signs


    But number the points when you're really happy with the order. And then number each of your rebuttal points accordingly.

    I think you might usefully head up your final point with a very firm:
    P.E. HAVE NOT addressed my appeal point that NTK must specify the relevant land to which the notice relates. In fact their signage evidence (image 3) shows ticket machine for another car park - 'Lido 2'!'. (Then your point about this).
    • Castle
    • By Castle 27th May 19, 9:32 AM
    • 2,360 Posts
    • 3,244 Thanks
    Castle
    Does that make a difference to my argument? Do I need to word anything differently?

    Lido (1) is the land they are claiming on the ntk
    Originally posted by Modyfi
    The ownership of Lido 1 is still in dispute, (as the administrators of Stour Side Developments are claiming legal title to it in their Feb 2019 report). Lido 2 is not owned by Stour Side Investments so the letter of authority signed in 2016 is invalid.
    • Modyfi
    • By Modyfi 27th May 19, 4:07 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    Modyfi
    So I assume then if the land itself is still in dispute, there is no chance P.E. have or will be able to obtain a LOA?

    I have updated with all points made. It definitely is an easier read compared to what I had written!


    Not that its needed but will post revised below. There is now 130 characters spare if any use can be thought of.


    P.E.'s Evidence pack claims:
    1) Insufficient time purchased
    2) They have written authority to operate at Lido 1
    3) Signs are clear & car headlights would illuminate signs

    Response
    1) Print out only states time of the vehicle. It does not show the amount. As stated the correct amount was paid yet P.E. did not provide proof that the machine was not 30p up after that period.

    2) P.E state “Please note that the Letter of Authority provided to demonstrate P.E’s authority to operate at this site is effective from 02/06/2016 as the date the Letter of Authority was signed”.

    Letter of Authority is dated 02/06/16 so is 3 years old. No expiry date. Signature is completely redacted. Text below signature states it is that of Paul Eley. Paul Eley resigned his directorship on 14th June '17. I conclude P.E. do not have authority to operate at this car park.

    3) Signage is illegible at night as shown previous. The SIgn Layout plan shows two on a lighting post which is false. This is proven with P.E own image (image 4) which shows the two signs with no lighting equipment fitted. P.E evidence shows daytime signage.

    The Signs are not within proximity to the vehicle and there are no distances on the plan. Lights on vehicle could not reach as stated. Mot standard for headlight adjustment is between 0.5% and 2.75% drop so with all signs above car height, headlight beam will not reach.

    4) Lastly is an issue not raised by P.E but enforces previous appeals argument.
    The Notice to keeper must:
    specify the relevant land on which it was parked which the notice relates;

    P.E. HAVE NOT addressed my appeal point that NTK must specify the relevant land to which the notice relates. In fact their signage evidence (image 3) shows ticket machine for another car park - 'Lido 2'. If P.E show incorrect evidence, how can they state which land is correct and be sure it follows BPA standard.
    • MistyZ
    • By MistyZ 27th May 19, 7:01 PM
    • 1,047 Posts
    • 2,101 Thanks
    MistyZ
    I think you've got there too.

    Nit-picking: 'signage is unlit & illegible at night as shown in my appeal'? Anything else you can add about signage?

    Could use up some spare words by referencing source of info. re. P. Eley's resignation? (They don't accept links).

    Good luck! Please let us all know the outcome.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 27th May 19, 10:23 PM
    • 76,496 Posts
    • 89,855 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Castle's words need to be used.

    Also wouldn't this be better to just say:
    1) Print out only states time of the vehicle. It does not show the amount paid. As stated the correct amount was paid yet P.E. did not provide proof from the machine of the amount paid. that the machine was not 30p up after that period.
    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
    • Modyfi
    • By Modyfi 28th May 19, 7:26 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    Modyfi
    Adjusted the section on payment as you have worded.

    Also added castle's post to loa section which now reads


    Letter of Authority is dated 02/06/16 so is 3 years old. No expiry date. Signature is completely redacted. Text below signature states it is that of Paul Eley. Paul Eley resigned his directorship on 14th June '17. I conclude P.E. do not have authority to operate at this car park. The ownership of Lido 1 is still in dispute (as the administrators of Stour Side Developments are claiming legal title to it in their Feb 2019 report). Lido 2 is not owned by Stour Side Investments so the letter of authority signed in 2016 is invalid.

    Any other suggestions?

    Today is the last day so wil upload tonight.
    • Modyfi
    • By Modyfi 13th Jun 19, 3:38 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    Modyfi
    Thank you to everyone for all the help and advice. My appeal has been successful!
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 13th Jun 19, 3:50 PM
    • 25,105 Posts
    • 40,495 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Thank you to everyone for all the help and advice. My appeal has been successful!
    Originally posted by Modyfi
    Well done.

    Can we see the POPLA assessor's response please? It will really help, if the response is lengthy, if you could put some paragraphs into the wall of text that POPLA spew out (highly unprofessional, lack of any consideration in respect of formatting and readability).
    Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in the critiquing of court case papers, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day;
    show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Modyfi
    • By Modyfi 13th Jun 19, 3:58 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    Modyfi
    Decision
    Successful

    Assessor Name
    Paul E Walker

    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator states that the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site either without appropriate payment or for longer than permitted. It has issued a parking charge notice (PCN) for £100 as a result.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant states that the required payment was made in full. He states that the ‘notice to keeper’ issued by the operator is not complaint with the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012. He states that the operator has no proprietary interest in the land and no right to enter into contracts with users of the site. He states that signage on site is not compliant with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice and was not prominent enough to enable a valid contact to be formed between the operator and driver. The appellant has provided a witness statement from himself.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    The appellant is acting for the registered keeper of the vehicle. The driver of the vehicle on the date in question has not been clearly identified. The operator is therefore pursuing the registered keeper for the charge in line with POFA.

    POFA allows a parking operator to transfer liability from the unidentified driver of a vehicle to the registered keeper of that vehicle, providing various conditions are met. One of those conditions is that the operator must issue a ‘notice to keeper’ and that said notice must “specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates”.

    The operator has provided a copy of the ‘notice to keeper’ issued. I am satisfied that the vehicle details and parking period were specified as required by POFA, however I am not satisfied that the relevant land was. The notice refers to the land only as “Lido (1)” with no reference to the specific address or even the general location of the site.

    It is not possible to determine from the information on the notice which of the hundreds of lidos no doubt situated around the country that the vehicle was alleged to have parked on.

    I am not satisfied from the evidence that the operator’s ‘notice to keeper’ was complaint with POFA in that it did not specify the relevant land on which the vehicle was parked.

    I am not therefore satisfied that the operator is within its rights to transfer liability for the charge from the unidentified driver to the register keeper of the vehicle. I am not satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly and I must allow this appeal.
    • Le_Kirk
    • By Le_Kirk 13th Jun 19, 4:08 PM
    • 6,599 Posts
    • 6,633 Thanks
    Le_Kirk
    Nice one! Well done!
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 13th Jun 19, 4:31 PM
    • 25,105 Posts
    • 40,495 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    It is not possible to determine from the information on the notice which of the hundreds of lidos no doubt situated around the country that the vehicle was alleged to have parked on.
    Cracker!

    An assessor seemingly with a bit of a twinkle in his eye.
    Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in the critiquing of court case papers, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day;
    show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • MistyZ
    • By MistyZ 13th Jun 19, 7:02 PM
    • 1,047 Posts
    • 2,101 Thanks
    MistyZ
    Good heavens!

    Hundreds of lidos? I wish. Though like this lido I suppose there are plenty of defunct ones. I like that assessor too.

    So very pleased for you Modyfi, well done!! You really worked at this. And someone should buy the awesome Edna Basher a pint for emphasising the 'does not adequately specify the relevant land' point.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Jun 19, 7:06 PM
    • 76,496 Posts
    • 89,855 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    There's Saltdean Lido and Worthing Lido here in Sussex, maybe he was thinking of them!

    The operator has provided a copy of the ‘notice to keeper’ issued. I am satisfied that the vehicle details and parking period were specified as required by POFA, however I am not satisfied that the relevant land was. The notice refers to the land only as “Lido (1)” with no reference to the specific address or even the general location of the site.
    Must remember this in other Lido POPLA appeals.

    Can you give us the POPLA code and date of decision please, so we can quote it?

    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
    • Edna Basher
    • By Edna Basher 13th Jun 19, 9:22 PM
    • 772 Posts
    • 2,025 Thanks
    Edna Basher
    Well done Modyfi.

    It's very refreshing to read about a POPLA assessor who's capable of thinking for themselves.
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

3,524Posts Today

8,663Users online

Martin's Twitter