@aldiuk Parking Eye chickens out again.....

[diskmandave]

90 minute overstay....... Single point appeal, GPEoL.

 

 

 

[renegadeimp]

Edit out your vehicle reg number. It also seems PE have done their usual trick. You appealed to POPLA, and PE simply ignored any questions or the appeal itself. SO they went after someone else who was more likely to pay up.

 

Why waste time trying to sort an appeal for £100 or whatever when you have dozens of not hundreds of other people willing to pay it there and then without PE going through all the paperwork.

[reallymadwoman]

Having a similar battle with PE myself at the moment, keep appealing on grounds they're almost obliged to refuse. At the moment it's about 50/50 between appeal allowed and having to go to POPLA but they have yet to submit any evidence to POPLA.

[diskmandave]

Scathing letter being prepared for Aldi.....

Edit done, thank you....

[reallymadwoman]

It seems PE are determined not to take me to court no matter how ridiculous my reason for appeal is. They've allowed another one which actually just said 'I wasn't parked there.'

[dadtaxi]

It seems PE are determined not to take me to court no matter how ridiculous my reason for appeal is. They've allowed another one which actually just said 'I wasn't parked there.'

 

It may be just me but there seems to be a trend to appeal on the most minimal or ridiculous grounds in order to force a POPLA appeal. No bad thing in my mind as POPLA don't seem to comment/analyse ( i presume its not in their remit) in the Parking companies rejection process

 

A missed opportunity I feel from when POPLA was formed which might be ridiculed into amending ( not holding my breath)

[reallymadwoman]

In my case(s) 'I wasn't parked there' is actually true. We (me and my visitors) have to pass through a PE controlled car park to reach our car park, but PE can't/won't distinguish between people passing through and those actually parking. I want them to take me to court but have been advised to go through the appeal/POPLA route so as to appear reasonable, but they keep allowing the appeals or not submitting evidence!

[renegadeimp]

They do that because they know they're wrong. So think ignorance is the best policy.

[DragonFly1967]

In my case(s) 'I wasn't parked there' is actually true. We (me and my visitors) have to pass through a PE controlled car park to reach our car park, but PE can't/won't distinguish between people passing through and those actually parking. I want them to take me to court but have been advised to go through the appeal/POPLA route so as to appear reasonable, but they keep allowing the appeals or not submitting evidence!

 

You'd think that they'd just add the residents (at least) vehicles to their database to save them a bit of postage.

[renegadeimp]

Why? The vast majority of people actually pay up willingly whatever the PPC demands. That money more than covers the cost of postage for everything they do. Theres one PPC and its sol for rent that operate out of a portakabin in a pub car park. Or at least used to.

[ericsbrother]

Reallymadwoman, keep appealing as it costs them money and eventually you can have them for harassment if they dont put your car reg on their "whitelist". Yes, they do have them but seen keen on trying their luck with everyone in your position.

[renegadeimp]

In my eyes, it would cost them money, but really it wouldnt cost them anything as theyd have people paying up willingly from other car parks. Theyd just use that money instead. basically free money.

[reallymadwoman]

In my case(s) 'I wasn't parked there' is actually true. We (me and my visitors) have to pass through a PE controlled car park to reach our car park, but PE can't/won't distinguish between people passing through and those actually parking. I want them to take me to court but have been advised to go through the appeal/POPLA route so as to appear reasonable, but they keep allowing the appeals or not submitting evidence!

 

Well one that's gone to POPLA has actually had some evidence submitted. My defence was 'not parked in that car park'. They start off with a load of bumpf about time limits in the PE car park, then go on to how they distinguish vehicles in the other car park. If they accept I was parked in that car park, why pursue the charge but if they don't, why include that info? They have also submitted quite a lot of info which, whilst strictly true, has glaring omissions, like 'my' car park being clearly separate and private and having our own signage which doesn't mention PE.

 

Do I challenge and prove to POPLA what idiots PE are or let it go and maybe finally get that court hearing?

 

On balance challenge since I doubt even PE are stupid enough to try court with me.

[dadtaxi]

'Do I challenge and prove to POPLA what idiots PE are' If it were me I would challenge , but on that single point only. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A risky move but then the Adjudicator would have to rule on that point alone rather than any other reason (well maybe not, they could just not turn up, or not submit evidence, but it's worth a try) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . However if you do get a specific ruling, then the fun really begins

[reallymadwoman]

From reading what is on the POPLA website, particularly the annual reports, the adjudicators will rule on pretty much any relevant point even if it isn't specifically raised by the appellant.

 

I have literally spent all day taking the evidence apart bit by bit - and unlike PE I actually went down to the car park to check something rather than risk stating as fact something which is not true and thereby casting doubt on the rest of my evidence. The site map they've submitted is more accurate than if they'd used Street View, but not much, and the number of omissions is extraordinary - anyone would think they've deliberately excluded anything which might go against them! Anyway, they have I would guess accidentally revealed that they don't even check for vehicles on the 'white list' until after an appeal is submitted, which begs the question, why have a white list at all? Having their written evidence on that last point might make the whole day worthwhile.

[dadtaxi]

the number of omissions is extraordinary - anyone would think they've deliberately excluded anything which might go against them!

 

how could you be so cynical, its almost like you think they want to win

[DragonFly1967]

how could you be so cynical, its almost like you think they want to win

 

As if!

 

I actually laughed out loud at that dadtaxi.

[reallymadwoman]

I had a dream last night in which POPLA were so appalled by what PE are doing on this site as well as the standard of their evidence (or actually, what they didn't submit) that they were immediately thrown out of the BPA and went out of business.

 

I'd settle for a rap on the knuckles over the evidence issue and a definitive ruling on this site.

[ericsbrother]

PE are the biggest parking co in the country so the BPA cant afford to chuck them out.

 

Secondly, for every person wrongly targeted by an error like this who fights it another 20 will meekly pay up and moan about it afterwards.

 

As long as that happens PE can happily afford to offer no evidence at the appeal stage

because if they fought every one a pattern may emerge that could lead to someone taking them to a higher court

and they would then lose and never be able to issue a charge ever again so they play the numbers game.

 

When they do court they hope to win by a walkover or they try and bluff it with procedural irregularities

and irrelevant paperwork in an attempt to bully the defendant and the court into believing they are right and thus concede.

 

The prime example they are currently trotting out in all of their paperwork

is the claim that the Cambridge case was a test case that goes in their favour and is thus binding.

Utter cobblers and they know it.

 

They are abusing the process and the sooner someone gets a judge to listen to this the better.

 

Problem is the infomality of the county court procedures that help the lay person also act to defend those that wish to abuse the system.

 

To clobber such shenanigans would also damage the tens of thousands of litigants in persons chances of getting justice

as they would be priced out of the legal system.

[DBC]

According to a FOI request posted over on MSE, PE has issued in excess of 17k court claims in the 7 months to June 2014 which could amount to 30,000 for a full year. That, to my mind, is an abuse of the Small Claims court. As you see PE are doing this on an industrial scale, hoping that most of their victims will just cave in and pay.

[ericsbrother]

can you imaging what would be said if all 17k claims were properly defended. For starters PE wouldn t have the logistics to get someone to each hearing and their up front costs would rocket whilst their revenues would plunge, even if they won them consequently. No cash for about 6 months for them and every POPLA appeal eating away at their balance sheet....

This is why they give it the big one every time and abuse the process of the law, they cant afford toact in any other way.

[DBC]

Don't forget that for each court claim, PE claim £50 "solicitor's fee". This is rather strange as PE employ a full-time solicitor who I presume is on their payroll.

[DragonFly1967]

Don't forget that for each court claim, PE claim £50 "solicitor's fee". This is rather strange as PE employ a full-time solicitor who I presume is on their payroll.

 

You couldn't possibly be suggesting that PE are 'double charging' could you? That's scandalous!

 

One of these days, PE are going to pick on someone that has the gumption and the wherewithal to take them all the way to the high court, and that will be not such a grand day out for PE and their pet legal team. For the rest of us though, it will be a day of great mirth, merriment and celebration. It might even be worth a day trip to London just to watch PE squirm.

[ericsbrother]

No, they use a locum to do the footwork who get a fixed fee for every case they screw up and cost PE even more money. Obviously the ones that pay up when the N1 drops on their mat make PE £50 for nothing. Another reason for fighting every claim, they have to actually pay their lawyers for turning up.