QUOTE (Jlc @ Sat, 4 Nov 2017 - 09:24)
Good stuff. So what now? Unfortunately, they will probably get away with the 'reasonable cause' to request your details from the DVLA. (As it would be argued that the appeals process has 'worked' in your favour) Frustrating indeed.
What now?
I will happily front the costs of filing a claim against ParkingEye AND the landholder - demanding compensation under S.13 of the 1998 Data Protection Act - (unlawfully processing the keeper's personal data causing substantial and unwarranted distress); for breaching S.10 of the 1998 Act - (failing to respond to a cease-and-desist Data Subject Notice); and for breaching S.7 of the 1998 Act (failing to respond to Subject Access Request).
Would anyone competent and familiar with the process like to help draw up the claim paperwork? With any winnings going to a worthy charity this Christmas? Does that appeal to someone's benevolent spirit?!
A couple of other avenues to pursue..
Neither the landholder nor ParkingEye has bothered with planning permission for the pole-mounted surveillance camera at this Café Oasis site. Nor have they bothered with advertisement consent for all the unsightly parking signage erected around this sensitive beach-side site, which is a criminal offence, apparently. Bit rich, innit? Glasshouses, stones?
Also, the Valuations Office lists this car-park as zero-rated (i.e free; not revenue-generating) for rating purposes. Clearly not correct. It is operated as a commercial car-park. And has been for years. With hefty penalty charges for overstays; these should be included in gross receipts when calculating rateable value. So the VOA rating needs correcting..
https://www.tax.service.gov.uk/business-rat...uarn=2763092000http://manuals.voa.gov.uk/corporate/Public...-vol5-s200.htmlThe landholder, an ex-solicitor, is an arrogant schmuck. He should be named as co-defendant, under the law of agency, in a DPA compensation claim. He refused (twice) to cancel this parking charge when politely requested. Yet he was aware from the outset that it was an invalid charge. Since his car-park has a glaring, unmonitored second exit through which vehicles can be driven onto the public beach. Yet he and ParkingEye continue to sting many other hapless motorists for the same unlawful charges. Most of them just paying up to 'make it go away'.
The landholder also boasted that he'd done court hundreds of times before, and would happily go there again. In the event, POPLA told him and ParkingEye to 'Do One'. Now the boot is firmly on the other foot. And it's time to boot both ParkingEye and the landholder squarely up the jacksie. Since they both love court so much, creating misery for millions, they deserve a damn good dose of their own medicine, Maybe setting a precedent, and certainly through publicity, encouraging others to sue the bastards too.
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sat, 4 Nov 2017 - 10:20)
The parking company has reasonable cause if the person purporting to be the landowner or legitimate occupier says its their land to enforce on.
However once they have an indication it's not..........
There would also be a case against that 'false' landowner/occupier for engaging the parking company to do something he knew he couldn't (unless he also had a reasonably held belief).
Did Parking Lie contest the appeal on authority with any evidence at all Ballymunboy?
ParkingEye lied, and then some, in their evidence pack. Quite compellingly. [I can post it to this thread]
They added signs on the site map where in truth there were none.
They claimed we had admitted liability by part-paying their £100 charge, when we had not.
They carefully cropped their site map - to hide the cars parked freely on the adjacent beach.
They artfully hid the second unmonitored exit from their car-park; by strategically placing a label over the top of the exit!
And they baldly stated that we had parked IN their private car-park and NOT on the public beach. Without offering a shred of evidence. Lying bastards.
Thankfully the adjudicator was not fooled by that litany of dishonesty.
But look at the time, money and effort we had to expend in responding to all their lies.. I had to give up a Saturday to visit the Weymouth site. Just to gather photographic evidence for this POPLA appeal. A 350 mile round journey from our W.Mids home. It's a good job I did. Otherwise we would have no proof of that second exit,nor that ParkingEye had invented signs on their site map, where in truth there were none, and so on.
But why should we be out of pocket from all that? ParkingEye is totally out of control. It needs to be hacked down. Anyone here like to help with that please? Through a claim for compensation against this rogue operator and the contracting landholder? I'll cover all costs, with compensation donated to a good cause...