Jump to content

PE false evidence to POPLA

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2776 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then


Please click the "Report " link


at the bottom of one of the posts.


If you want to post a new story then


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

Parkingeye gave false photographic evidence on signs to POPLA Wright Hassell.


My appeal to them was rejected..



I did not find this out until after the rejection letter having looked at PEs evidence in detail.



I complained to BPA and ISPA but I don't think they want to get between the dog and his bone.


I have now had the letter before county court claim and expect court claim to follow.


I have written to PE informing them of the false evidence with copies of the photographic facts but nothing from them to date.


What are my chances of defending and winning on confusing and nonexistent signage and false evidence to POPLA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are correct then your chances of success should be very good.


Why don't you let us know a bit more about the discrepancy that you have found. Have you taken photographs of the same area so that the discrepancies are clear?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have very good photographic evidence taken and dated on the day I got the PCN.

See letter sent to Parkingeye.


Further to your letter dated 23rd August 2016.

I have no intention of paying Parkingeye as my appeal to POPLA Wright Hassall did not take into account the confused signage and mitigating ambulatory nature of the appeal.


I also believe Wright Hassall is not impartial having worked for multiple Parking firms in a Debt Collecting capacity and are only interested in the recent supreme court decision as a panacea.


Parkingeye also gave false photographic evidence of signage to POPLA Wright Hassall.


I have made a complaint to ISPA and they are looking into the matter.


I will set this out again for your information.


On arriving at the site with my patient/passenger I did observe signs that indicated that the car park was for use of NHS patients and as my passenger was a NHS patient with a disabled parking badge I parked in a disabled bay.


At this point my patient was in a very distressed state which I had to transfer to a wheelchair and apply oxygen before moving the patient to the NHS breast care centre, having had no time to read small print.


In Parkingeye’s evidence to POPLA Wright Hassall,

“which I have a copy of; Parkingeye produced a sign that does not exist on the site. (Photograph 1 enclosed).


This sign was not in place when I arrived; and to this date I believe it is still not in place,

I have photographic evidence (Photograph 2 enclosed) to prove this fact taken on the 15th of February 2015 and again in July 2016.


It would appear that Parkingeye gave false evidence to POPLA Wright Hassall.


If Parkingeye insist in following this churlish vexatious money making claim against disabled pensioners,

I will have no choice but to vigorously contest this matter and defend in county court using this letter and your confusing signage plus other photographic evidence I have in my possession.

Link to post
Share on other sites

can you name the hospital please?




please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

its not a hospital but two NHS sites

175 and 177 London road Brighton


175 was the car park I parked in,


the sign said patients only

the sign that was missing would have told me I was in the wrong car park.


when I returned to the car I read a sign that said register your car at reception,


When I tried to do this I was told they could not as I was not their patient

and they had a contract with Parkingeye to make no exceptions what so ever.


Both sites had NHS signs, that's the confusion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You were talking about fraud but now you are referring merely to "confusion".


What you actually mean by fraud? Are you saying that parking eye have acted dishonestly in some way or has there been some mixing up of photographs? I think that you need to clarify this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes in evidence to POPLA Wright Hassell,

Parkingeye produced a photographic picture of a sign that was not there on the day and was not there up to July 2016.



I have my own photographic picture evidence showing the sign was not there.

The sign read ( PARKING for patients visiting this building only NO PARKING for breast care southern dental Brighton diagnostic centre,)



this was on a post in front of a further sign that read Patients only

which also had small print which read all medical centre patients must register at reception,

this sign was there.



Had I seen the sign that was not there I would not have parked.

So yes I have proof of false evidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

as you have a letter threatening court action - respond to that letter



tell them that there has been no breach of the conditions as the signage is not present and that other signage doesnt form a contract.



As PE have provided false testimony to POPLA you look forward to seeing them in court where if they repeat this falsehood you will be making a complaint of perjury.


In any case their signage is prohibitive so you were trespassing and that is not a contractual obligation or a breah of contract.

The landowner may sue for damages if they can prove how your car damaged their car park but PE can do nothing.


I would reckon that your case all will go quiet,

they will continue to chase any other mug who hasnt spotted this

but it is unlikely they will want the bother of explaining this to more than one judge at their own expense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Parkingeye read letters sent to them, I have just received a further letter from them saying they have received my letter.

Saying I have been processed for further action because POPLA found in their favour and it goes on to say all the costs I will incur should court proceedings be issued. I now think I am corresponding with a machine.

I will wait for the machine to roll on into court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...