ok so Ive copied and pasted a few bits from the links posted. I expect I ve got it all wrong but this is what Ive written(not yet sent)

The land is not 'relevant land' for the purposes of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA") T, by virtue of paragraph 3(1)© of Schedule 4 of POFA, the Operator has no right to recover under POFA. There are previous cases where Popla have decided on this and agreed there is no right to recover from the registered keeper.Therefore there is no keeper liability.

the signs as unclear/ not enough of them/acres of small text/ mounted so high you can't read without a telescope - fail to meet the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice Para 18.3Require that they produce photos of the signs as visible under the lighting conditions at the time

Signs do not state that ANPR is used to calculate the period of parking and that it includes the time before finding a parking space and leaving afterward.

Even if a contract existed, this is a unilateral and retrospective variation of its terms.

I require proof that their contract grants them the authority to pursue charges to court in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice Para 7.2

A witness statement must be signed by the landowner in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice 22.16b.

There is no evidence to show the vehicle was parked for the time claimed to be in the car park.

The date of event is recorded as 28/5/18 the date the letter to me as the registered keeper was issued 7/7/18 and in it Parking eye claim to have originally written to the registered keeper who informed them I was liable..

FACT I am the registered keeper of this vehicle and have been since 27/6/16 though I was not the driver on the date in question. so their statement is a Lie and they have made no attempt to address the registered keeper before 7/7/18. So apart from the POFA 2012 RULING and the recent case where a judge upheld that

you have written a slippery slope argument that may undo your appeal. In demanding sight of a contract you are undermining the point of it not being relevant land and covered by its own byeleays. Anyone can enter a contract as PE has but they fail in law on "performance"

The usual example of perfprmance of a contract si I offer to sell you London Bridge. You agree to buy it but dont hand over the money because i dont own it. I sue you for breach of contract and win. Why? becuase having agrred terms you have to pay up and then sue me to get your money back becuae I am not in a position to offer you London Bridge in the first place. They will do the same to you, better off letting them know that (as it is a unilateral contract so there is no offer and counter offer) then the performance aspect comes into play beofre it can be said the contract is formed. So, they cant offer you a contract and that means you cant break one end of.

Again this means you need to change the wording of your first stateemnt as this has nothing to do with keeper liability, there is no liability created at all. lay that on with a trowel.

All your other points are likewise very secondary to the main point of "they have no right to offer" so change things around so it is clear that the other bits are there to show their claim is doomed anyways but POPLA must rule on the former. They wont like that.

thanks for the reply,

sadly too late for me as I already submitted the appeal.

I dont fully understand how to argue points in a legal manner.

However my time is precious as I am currently in the middle of selling my business and and in the middle of starting a new one elsewhere along with moving..

If push comes to shove I'll name the idiot driver who chose to stop in a car park he had no reason to be in and even worse take on face value the person their telling him its ok as the machine was broken..

What I dont understand is how its OK for them to lie about evidence but not OK for me to highlight this. t

If I am reading comments correctly around the internet are they even allowed o get data from DVLA for such a car park?

its all very confusing to me

It's not that confusing honestly.

Think £ and add 0's and you'll soon work out why most (not quite all) PPC's would try to prove that night was day if it would make them more of it. And the DVLA are complicit because they just take the word of the PPC's because they're a member of an AOS (night is day remember) that they really do have 'reasonable cause' to obtain the keeper details.... Honest

For the PPC's, it's all a numbers game. They won't give a single fig whether or not they get any money from you, not really at least. You aren't important because there's a queue of other mugs behind you that they have managed to convince all waiting to give them money.

The whole business model stinks, but, it's what we're stuck with for now.

They can do this because if they claim they have an honest belief then that is all right. It is not fraud to be incompetent and stupid so that is what they will always claim if they are caught out.

Also, as they often do get caught out at a small caims court then they go on to repeat the same lies because no-one will know about the first occasion. Unless you can get trading Standards breathing down their necks you arent going to get a change of behaviour. TS have prosecuted one parking co but they got procedures wrong and the buggers got off on appealing the technicalities ( that is what the law is, after all, not what peopel think it is)

It's not that confusing honestly.

 

Think £ and add 0's and you'll soon work out why most (not quite all) PPC's would try to prove that night was day if it would make them more of it. And the DVLA are complicit because they just take the word of the PPC's because they're a member of an AOS (night is day remember) that they really do have 'reasonable cause' to obtain the keeper details.... Honest

 

For the PPC's, it's all a numbers game. They won't give a single fig whether or not they get any money from you, not really at least. You aren't important because there's a queue of other mugs behind you that they have managed to convince all waiting to give them money.

 

The whole business model stinks, but, it's what we're stuck with for now.

thank you. Yes i recognise there are plenty of people who just pay up.. I had a previous issue courtesy of my daughter on that occasion I chose to brave it out and ignore the letter(s) though I did get advised this wasn't a good course of action so took that on board this time and responded to it. They were different companies and I was lucky with the other one who didn't pursue it though it does look as PE will take them as far as they can and hope to win the day

They can do this because if they claim they have an honest belief then that is all right. It is not fraud to be incompetent and stupid so that is what they will always claim if they are caught out.

Also, as they often do get caught out at a small caims court then they go on to repeat the same lies because no-one will know about the first occasion. Unless you can get trading Standards breathing down their necks you arent going to get a change of behaviour. TS have prosecuted one parking co but they got procedures wrong and the buggers got off on appealing the technicalities ( that is what the law is, after all, not what peopel think it is)

thank you.. it looks as if I have messed up my appeal due to my impatience so it looks like I'll end up in court over it. Where I expect I will need to be much better prepared

Don't worry about it decks. Whatever ParkingLie and/or POPLOL say, it isn't binding on you.

If ParkingLie are silly enough to chance their arm on a byelaws case in court, there's a 99.9% chance they'll lose with a strong defence. Just wait for advice (and take it) next time. This ain't our first rodeo

Don't worry about it decks. Whatever ParkingLie and/or POPLOL say, it isn't binding on you.

 

If ParkingLie are silly enough to chance their arm on a byelaws case in court, there's a 99.9% chance they'll lose with a strong defence. Just wait for advice (and take it) next time. This ain't our first rodeo

thank you and noted

Just want to update to advise that parking eye do not wish to contest my appeal no reason given back popla

Would like to thank the people on this forum for their help and advice

To any one searching for the first time my advice is don’t ignore a letter but read the forum on how best to respond

They didn't want to contest it because they realised that you were better informed than they'd hoped.

Well done I'll update your thread title.