PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN - Parking Eye (Flip Out London E6)
John121
post Wed, 11 Oct 2017 - 13:30
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 128
Joined: 9 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,167



Hi guys,
I was suprised to receive the following PCN from Parking Eye.
However the driver of the vehicle did not have any idea that you would have to pay to park in this car park, especially at 06.19am on a Sunday morning - if the driver had known he would definatley not have parked there.
Also driver advised the vehicle had broken down and would not start until after several attempts.

Ive attached both pages of the PCN and also attached a picture from Google Maps which shows the entrance of the car park (by looking at the picture I cannot see any parking charge sign anywhere near the entrance)

Please advise the best way to appeal this one?

Im really sorry if this topic has been covered many times but any help on my case will be much appreciated.







Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
6 Pages V  « < 4 5 6  
Start new topic
Replies (100 - 115)
Advertisement
post Wed, 11 Oct 2017 - 13:30
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
John121
post Tue, 28 Nov 2017 - 20:33
Post #101


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 128
Joined: 9 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,167



Hey guys,
Plan is to send this off ideally tomorrow morning.
Please let me know your thoughts?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
John121
post Tue, 28 Nov 2017 - 22:04
Post #102


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 128
Joined: 9 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,167



Please let me know final thoughts as I want to send this rebuttle of ideally tomorrow morning. Also I would really appreciate if someone can advice if I should get rid of the reference I've made in regards to BPA Code of Practise in Point 3 (Highlighted in Red)???


• Parking Eye have failed to provide an actual contract with the landowner as requested, however instead there have provided a witness statement from an unknown person which is insufficient as there is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory has ever seen the relevant contract terms, or whether the employee had sufficient authority to write the witness statement, or signed it on the date shown.

• Parking Eye could have provided the contract but chose not to. Either there is no contract, or it shows hidden clauses on cancellations or as regards unclear boundaries and agreed grace periods that are in favour of the appellant.

• All the pictures Parking Eye have shown of the signage have been taken in daylight. Section 18.3 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice states: “Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. Parking Eye have not provided any photographs showing how the terms of the signage are lit at night time or in darkness.

• The signs are at least 7 foot above the ground therefore the headlights of the car would not have shown the wording on the signs and certainly not the small print. Also the signage is not readable at eye level, for a driver in moving traffic on arrival. The only signs are up on poles and were not read nor even seen by the occupants of the car.

• The terms and conditions on the signs are very small and are unreadable even when magnifying the photographs, therefore I believe the small writing of the terms and conditions would be a hindrance to people who cannot reach up to read these due to the height of the signs and also may have problems reading small writing or eyesight difficulties.

• The aerial layout plan provided by Parking Eye does not have a date nor even a location identifier, this can be located anywhere. I cannot recognise with any certainty, the site from that so-called aerial view and think Parking Eye have possibly uploaded the wrong aerial location entirely. The only word on it is 'Winter' upside down, there are no road names nor buildings identified and no contemporaneous photos of the car park.

• The photographs which Parking Eye have provided of the vehicle do not show the vehicle parking. The burden of proof was on Parking Eye proving that the driver was indeed parked for the duration which they have failed to show.

• The "white list lookup" which Parking Eye have provided does not have a date and time stamp. It is not verified as being from all machines or terminals. It does not confirm if there was a mistake by the machine, with a VRN close to that of the appellants. It also does not have a statement of truth to back up that this is even from that machine on that day – it could even be a staff database which of course wouldn’t show the appellants VRN.

• The appellant mentioned that there was a frustration of contract as the vehicle had broken down, which was not the fault of either party, and which rendered it impossible for the driver to perform any existing contract. Parking Eye have failed to acknowledge this nor refute this point. If Parking Eye had any doubts than the burden lied on them to prove otherwise which there have failed to do.

I hope the above rebuttal points are enough of a clarification to uphold my appeal.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Wed, 29 Nov 2017 - 00:57
Post #103


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,089
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



QUOTE
• Parking Eye have failed to provide an actual contract with the landowner as requested, however instead there have provided a witness statement from an unknown person which is insufficient as there is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory has ever seen the relevant contract terms, or whether the employee had sufficient authority to write the witness statement, or signed it on the date shown.

• Parking Eye could have provided the contract but chose not to. Either there is no contract, or it shows hidden clauses on cancellations or as regards unclear boundaries and agreed grace periods that are in favour of the appellant.


Move the above to the end, as that point isn't going to win. Personally I would remove it, if they've shown a WS then POPLA will accept it.

I would remove this too, as it isn't assisting at all:

QUOTE
• The photographs which Parking Eye have provided of the vehicle do not show the vehicle parking. The burden of proof was on Parking Eye proving that the driver was indeed parked for the duration which they have failed to show.


Your best bet is to first state there is no evidence that the signs were lit, and that the aerial view is not recognisable as the location in question.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
John121
post Wed, 29 Nov 2017 - 09:48
Post #104


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 128
Joined: 9 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,167



Thanks a million for your help. Relevant changes have been made and rebuttle has been submitted to POPLA via Email.

Fingers and toes crossed now.

I will let you guys know the outcome.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
John121
post Fri, 8 Dec 2017 - 14:51
Post #105


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 128
Joined: 9 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,167



Hey Genius'es,
Below is the response I received from Popla today....

The appellant has raised numerous grounds of appeal, however, my report will focus solely on signage, as this supersedes all other aspects. The appellant has stated that at the time the alleged contravention took place it was impossible to see any of the signs because of the darkness and inadequate lighting. The appellant has provided undated photographs in support of this. The operator has provided images from the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system which recorded motorists entering and exiting the site. From the images provided, I can see that when the appellant entered the site at 06:19 and exited at 06:38. It was dark on site. In terms of POPLA appeals the burden of proof lies with the operator to provide POPLA with clear, sufficient evidence to prove that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly. Furthermore, it’s the operator’s responsibility to provide evidence to POPLA to rebut the appellant’s claims. I would expect the operator to provide POPLA with photographic evidence to show that motorists are able to clearly see the signage on the site in the dark or alternatively provide evidence of lighting columns or other ambient lighting at the location. Although the operator states that the signs would have been visible to the appellant with his headlights on, from the evidence provided, the operator has failed to do this therefore; it has failed to rebut the appellant’s claims. As such, I am not able to determine whether the appellant would have been able to see the signage or the entrance sign on the site as the operator has not provided photographic evidence to illustrate that the signs were illuminated. Based upon the evidence provided, I am not able to determine whether the appellant would have been able to see the signage in the dark, as the operator has failed to provide evidence to rebut the appellant’s claims. As such, I confirm the PCN was issued incorrectly. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal, however, as I have decided to allow the appeal for this reason, I did not feel they required further consideration.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Fri, 8 Dec 2017 - 15:02
Post #106


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,398
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: Hampshire
Member No.: 16,066



Brilliant. Well done!

Please post in completed cases with a link back to this thread.


--------------------
Cabbyman 8 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
John121
post Fri, 8 Dec 2017 - 15:11
Post #107


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 128
Joined: 9 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,167



Hey Genius'es,
Today is a day of celebration.

First of all I would like to thank each and every one of you that helped as without you guys this would not have been possible.

I remember at times I wanted to give up and just pay the fine to Parking Eye, but everyone's help and support just made me more committed to carry on.

You guys showed me so much love and support that at times I felt as though this PCN belonged to you guys and not me.

nosferatu1001 - Thanks you so much for always responding super fast and providing excellent advise.

ostell - you contributed excellently and gave some impressive ideas as always.

ballymunboy - Excellent ideas and provided some genius points, especially the sunrise/sunset times.

SchoolRunMum - If there is one star person that I would have to pick out then it would be you. Ive never come accross a person who is so glued and on the ball.

Guys if I carry on mentioning names, I could literally go on for hours and hours, ultimately this was a joint team effort and credit goes to every single one of you.

Even the guys that are running the forum you are doing one hell of a job.

Keep up the excellent work and may you all be blessed abundantly for this.

Finally I would like to say that even though the battle has been won however please remember the war will continue....

P.s. I have added to completed case summaries :-)

This post has been edited by John121: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 - 15:26
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 8 Dec 2017 - 15:22
Post #108


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,283
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Thanks for the thanks, and great result!

You should aks the BPA to now investigate the site, and confirm that all tickets issued during the hours of darkness will be refunded - as POPLA has confirmed the signs could not be seen.

PLease add to compelted cases, with a link back to this thread smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
John121
post Fri, 8 Dec 2017 - 15:38
Post #109


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 128
Joined: 9 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,167



Sent the below to BPA ;-)

I received a PCN by Parking Eye at Flip Out E6.

Popla Ref: 606xxxxxxx

Popla have confirmed that the signs could not be seen in the hours of darkness. I would therefore request BPA to investigate the site, and confirm that all tickets issued during the hours of darkness will be refunded.

Below is the address of the site which Parking Eye issued PCN for:
Flip Out London E6
281 Barking Road
London
E6 1LB

I look forward to your response.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Fri, 8 Dec 2017 - 20:15
Post #110


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,089
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



Thanks for the thanks!

Glad to see that POPLA decided as predicted:

QUOTE
Your best bet is to first state there is no evidence that the signs were lit, and that the aerial view is not recognisable as the location in question.


Nice one POPLA.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Billericay Dicki...
post Sat, 9 Dec 2017 - 12:09
Post #111


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 22 Dec 2016
Member No.: 89,257



Well done on your win and for costing PE the £27 POPLA fee.

Glad that the POPLA assessor expected PE to provide evidence that the signage was readable in darkness, rather than believe them that signage was readable by being lit with the headlights of a car.

PE probably expected you to either fold at some point before POPLA, or for the assssor to accept that the car headlights were sufficient to illuminate the signage. No doubt PE staff are expected to achieve pcn targets each month!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
John121
post Sat, 9 Dec 2017 - 12:33
Post #112


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 128
Joined: 9 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,167



After yesterdays celebrations and being over the moon - iv'e woken up this morning to another PCN letter.

I don't understand whats going on with me these days, absolutely gutted :-(

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=117464
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
John121
post Mon, 11 Dec 2017 - 09:50
Post #113


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 128
Joined: 9 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,167



Below is the response I got from BPA in regards to investigating PE site and cancelling all PCNs issued during the hours of darkness:

Good morning

The remit of the AOS investigations team is to investigate breaches of its Code of Practice when evidence is supplied. There is actually no requirement within our Code of Practice for signs to be lit at night. The signs should be made of reflective material where possible, but that is best practice only. In addition, if POPLA wish for us to investigate a breach of a point raised in our Code of Practice, they will also let us know directly.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Mon, 11 Dec 2017 - 12:16
Post #114


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,283
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



There is a requirement that signs can be seen, as these are the basis of any offer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
John121
post Mon, 11 Dec 2017 - 13:10
Post #115


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 128
Joined: 9 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,167



Seems as though BPA are biased with Parking Operators
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Mon, 11 Dec 2017 - 22:10
Post #116


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,089
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



QUOTE (John121 @ Mon, 11 Dec 2017 - 10:50) *
Below is the response I got from BPA in regards to investigating PE site and cancelling all PCNs issued during the hours of darkness:

Good morning

The remit of the AOS investigations team is to investigate breaches of its Code of Practice when evidence is supplied. There is actually no requirement within our Code of Practice for signs to be lit at night. The signs should be made of reflective material where possible, but that is best practice only. In addition, if POPLA wish for us to investigate a breach of a point raised in our Code of Practice, they will also let us know directly.



Dear BPA,

I am letting you know directly.

Your CoP says this, and these signs are in breach, kindly open an investigation and kindly cease competing with your colleagues to invent new ways to fob off motorists and keepers who are victimised and fleeced by your shoddy, often aggressive AOS members on a daily basis:

QUOTE
Contrast and illumination
There must be enough colour contrast between the text and
its background, each of which should be a single solid colour.

The best way to achieve this is to have black text on a white
background, or white text on a black background.
Signs should be readable and understandable at all times,
including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when
parking enforcement activity takes place at those times
. This
can be achieved in a variety of ways such as by direct lighting or
by using the lighting for the parking area. If the sign itself is not
directly or indirectly lit, we suggest that it should be made of a
retro-reflective material similar to that used on public roads and
described in the Traffic Signs Manual. Dark-coloured areas do
not need to be reflective.


yours faithfully,

This post has been edited by SchoolRunMum: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 - 22:23
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

6 Pages V  « < 4 5 6
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Sunday, 25th February 2018 - 21:51
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.