Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder

Jessicajil

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    36
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Jessicajil

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. armadillo71 This is the pdf of the photos which I meant to upload, I'm not sure where I went wrong when uploading it previously .. this one has the registration etc disguised. However it is only of historical interest since I have sent in my appeal.
  2. I have done the appeal online, on the grounds that the PCN is invalid because it was dated and sent after the statutory period. I said it was harassment to sent such an invoice when it is is not valid. I also added that there were no visible notices, and that they can check that on Google Earth if they wish. I asked them to send me a POPLA if they reject my appeal. As suggested, I took screen prints as I went along, and informed them of that. I will keep you informed of what happens ... Thank you again for your help.
  3. Thank you, I removed them from the JPEG. but hadn't realised I had not done so from the .pdf. I have deleted the photos with the reg number on them. I had disguised the bar codes by cut and pasting different bits across them so they aren't real.
  4. [ATTACH=CONFIG]54755[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]54756[/ATTACH] My graphics package doesn't save in .pdf, so I have had to cut and paste into Word, with loss of definition. I have re-scanned just the two photos and attached them as .pdfs too.
  5. I see what you mean about the photos, unless the two cameras are linked to the same time clock, there is no proof that they indicate how long the car was there? I have attached a scan of the PCN with the identifiers removed.
  6. The time parked ... I'm not sure of what you are asking? I simplified the question by not putting the seconds in .. the photos actually show 19:05:34 until 23:09:33 I received the PCN on 04/12/2014.
  7. We parked in Asda car-park in Brighton Marina from 19:05 hours until 23:09 on 17/11/2014 as clearly shown in the PCN photos of our number plate. We have we received a PCN from Smart Parking dated 02/12/2014. I understand that the PCN has to be sent by the 12th day in order to be valid. My question is, is this 12 working days or 12 days? And .. where do I find that information please? Incidentally, neither of us saw any signs indicating that parking was time-limited. I have looked at Google Earth, and you can drive in without seeing any signs. You successfully helped me get a PCN from Parking Eye cancelled, so I am willing to try again!
  8. I won my appeal against ParkingEye for a PCN in the car park at Hove near Wickes and Staples. See http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?411342-No-notice-at-entrance-to-ParkingEye-Car-park THANK YOU to all who helped me get this right. ParkingEye didn't even present evidence ! Jess
  9. Thank you so much to all who helped .. I WON THE APPEAL TO POPLA This what the Assessor wrote :- It is the Appellant’s case that the parking charge notice was issued incorrectly. The Operator has not produced a copy of the parking charge notice, nor any evidence to show a breach of the conditions of parking occurred, nor any evidence that shows what the conditions of parking, in fact, were. Accordingly I have no option but to allow the appeal. . The actual text I used in the end to Popla (altered slightly to make it make sense as it stands ) was :- Background. The car park in Hove is one of three near Wickes, Staples etc. There are signs at the entrance to two of the car parks but none in the car park we used. The car-park we used has a re-cycling centre in it. 1. The letter from ParkingEye states that there is signage clearly displayed at the entrance to the car park and throughout it. This is untrue. There is no sign at the entrance to the car park, and only one (partially hidden) one within it. 2. ParkingEye say that there is adequate signage on this site, that is visible appropriately located, clear and legible. The sign in the car park is hidden behind a large re-cycling bin, so is not appropriately located. It is only partially visible in the day-time Fig 04, and is not visible after dark since it is not illuminated. Therefore there can be no implied contract between myself and ParkingEye and therefore no breach of contract. The absence of signage at the entrance of a car park, and obscured signs within it were the reason for a recent appeal against ParkingEye being upheld in 3JD00565 at Colchester county court (ParkingEye v Rogers) 3. The one sign in the car park Fig 06 states that a parking charge notice will be issued for a “failure to comply” with the terms of parking. This wording indicates that the charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract. Accordingly, the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. In the absence of evidence of ParkingEye having provided a breakdown of the Genuine pre-estimate of loss for this car-park, I would submit that the parking charge of £85 does not reflect the ParkingEye’s loss, and is therefore not enforceable. 4. In the absence of evidence that ParkingEye have a contract to collect monies on behalf of the owner/s, I have to assume that there is no current contract. 5. Since this is a free car park, there is no loss to the landowner so any charge is punitive which has been held in the High Court to be unenforceable. 6. The BPA rules state "You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for." The one sign present does not state this. There is just an icon of a camera in the bottom of the frame of the notice which does not include any statement as to its use. 7. In the absence of evidence that the camera used by ParkingEye is implemented with timing and sync loss logs then any images developed by the system cannot be trusted. Any use of the data collected as evidence of fact is inadmissible, and ParkingEye have no evidence as to how long the car was parked in the car-park. Thank you again ... having been conned by these people in the past into paying, I am so pleased that they have not got me this time!
  10. I rang POPLA and they said the verification is valid even though I had tried to use it in two different browsers, so she said to send the information by email, which I have just done in .pdf form. THANK YOU so much everyone for your help, :-) I will let you know when I hear anything.
  11. ParkingEye have sent me an invalid verification code .. what do I do now? Should this be a new thread?
  12. Thank you for all the help given here, especially from ericsbrother From all that I have been told/found out, I have put together a submission to POPLA, please could you cast your eye over it for me to make sure there are no howlers? The fig numbers are not the same as those I have uploaded here, so ignore them, as it's the wording I want to check? Thank you! Reasons for appeal. Background. The car park is one of three near some stores. Fig 01 There are signs at the entrance to two of the car parks but none in the car park we used. Fig 02 The car-park we used has a re-cycling centre in it. 1. In the absence of evidence that the camera used by ParkingEye is implemented with timing and sync loss logs then any images developed by the system cannot be trusted. Any use of the data collected as evidence of fact is wrong, and ParkingEye have no evidence as to how long the car was parked in the car-park. 2. The letter from ParkingEye states that there is signage clearly displayed at the entrance to the car park and throughout it. This is untrue. There is no sign at the entrance to the car park. Fig 03 3. ParkingEye say that there is adequate signage on this site, that is visible appropriately located, clear and legible. The sign in the car park is hidden behind a large re-cycling bin, so is not appropriately located. It is only partially visible in the day-time Fig 04, and is not visible after dark since it is not illuminated. Fig 05. Therefore there can be no implied contract between myself and ParkingEye and therefore no breach of contract. The absence of signage at the entrance of a car park, and obscured signs within it were the reason for a recent appeal against ParkingEye being upheld in 3JD00565 at Colchester county court (ParkingEye v Rogers) 4. The one sign in the car park Fig 06 states that a parking charge notice will be issued for a “failure to comply” with the terms of parking. This wording indicates that the charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract. Accordingly, the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. I would submit that the parking charge of £85 does not reflect the ParkingEye’s loss, and is therefore not enforceable. 5. In the absence of evidence that ParkingEye have a contract to collect monies on behalf of the owner/s, I have to assume that there is no such contract. 6. Since this is a free car park there is no loss to the landowner so any charge is punitive which has been held in the High Court to be unenforceable. 7. The BPA rules state "You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for." The one sign present does not state this. There is just an icon of a camera in the bottom of the frame of the notice which does not include any statement as to its use.
×
×
  • Create New...