IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.
Meadowhall shopping centre POPLA Appeal CPPlus
Comments
-
So you already have a fair few points!
1) no landowner authority. The squiggled letter is meaningless.
2) no NtK meaning no actual ticket. Nothing showing they can hold the appellant liable0 -
OK, so there are some comments to make, as others have said. So just put:
These are my comments on the evidence provided by CP Plus.
In accordance with the points already made in my appeal, CP Plus have thrown in an unfounded allegation (with no evidence of identity of drivers) that they assume the same driver is a 'repeat offender', despite this appeal coming from the registered keeper, regarding a car which is often used by family members, as genuine customers of Meadowhall. CP Plus have in particular, failed to evidence the following:
- the identity of the driver
- that the keeper can be held liable (no Notice to Keeper in evidence)
- that there is authority flowing from the landowners, who are British Land.
- the date that the letter provided by CP Plus themselves, was signed, if it was so signed by British Land at all
- who the letter was signed by (the name and position is omitted)
- the expiry date of the alleged contract
- what the definitions/restrictions of parking are, in the supposed/undated contract
- that the car was parked in a 'restricted' place at all
- how close any signs were to the car, and how the terms relate to the driver
- that the car was parked by 'on-duty staff', if that is indeed the suggestion
- that the car wasn't in fact, parked by a Meadowhall customer on that day
- that the driver that day was not authorised to park in that place
- where the car was parked at all, there is no evidence of where this was within the site
- what relevance the aerial image has, with a scrawled arrow and no date/proof of exact parking location (Meadowhall is huge, with several car parks).PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
nosferatu1001 wrote: »So you already have a fair few points!
1) no landowner authority. The squiggled letter is meaningless.
2) no NtK meaning no actual ticket. Nothing showing they can hold the appellant liable
I agree these are the main points for you to emphasise when you send your comments on CP Plus's evidence to POPLA.
When you do have gathered all your comments together in a document, convert the document to a pdf then attach it in an email to POPLA. In your email quote your POPLA verification number and tell them you would like the pdf with your comments to CP Plus's evidence attaching to your case file for the assessor to see. Unless POPLA have got their act together, because for a while you were unable to send in additional comments via their online portal so it was easier to email them.0 -
Coupon-mad wrote: »OK, so there are some comments to make, as others have said. So just put:
These are my comments on the evidence provided by CP Plus.
In accordance with the points already made in my appeal, CP Plus have thrown in an unfounded allegation (with no evidence of identity of drivers) that they assume the same driver is a 'repeat offender', despite this appeal coming from the registered keeper, regarding a car which is often used by family members, as genuine customers of Meadowhall. CP Plus have in particular, failed to evidence the following:
- the identity of the driver
- that the keeper can be held liable (no Notice to Keeper in evidence)
- that there is authority flowing from the landowners, who are British Land.
- the date that the letter provided by CP Plus themselves, was signed, if it was so signed by British Land at all
- who the letter was signed by (the name and position is omitted)
- the expiry date of the alleged contract
- what the definitions/restrictions of parking are, in the supposed/undated contract
- that the car was parked in a 'restricted' place at all
- how close any signs were to the car, and how the terms relate to the driver
- that the car was parked by 'on-duty staff', if that is indeed the suggestion
- that the car wasn't in fact, parked by a Meadowhall customer on that day
- that the driver that day was not authorised to park in that place
- where the car was parked at all, there is no evidence of where this was within the site
- what relevance the aerial image has, with a scrawled arrow and no date/proof of exact parking location (Meadowhall is huge, with several car parks).
Lots of valid comments by Coupon-mad.
I would also suggest adding something along the lines of this.
When stating that CP Plus have not proved they have the authority of the landowner, point out to the assessor the BPA's Code of Practice section 7 as below. Copy these sections of the COP into your comments so it's there in front of them and they don't have to look for it.
7 Written authorisation of the landowner
7.1 If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges.
7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:
a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.
The document titled 'Signed Landowner Authority' submitted by CP Plus (enter page number here) as evidence in lieu of a copy of a contract between themselves and their client British Land, fails to prove they have the necessary authority to pursue parking charges in the following respects :
It doesn't say that CP Plus are required to keep to the Code of Practice, as required by 7.1
It does not set out the definition of the relevant land so the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined. As required by 7.3a
It fails to say who has the responsibility for putting up signs. As required by 7.3d
It fails to state the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement. As required by 7.3b
Also point out that the signature on the document purporting to be on behalf of Meadowhall is unintelligible. There is not a printed name of this person or position in the company given for this person, so it is impossible to know who this person is and therefore whether they have necessary authority within the company to give such permissions to CP Plus and sign this document. The signature is also undated.
For the above reasons CP Plus have failed to prove they have the authority to issue and pursue parking charges.0 -
RobinofLoxley wrote: »
I would also suggest adding something along the lines of this.
When stating that CP Plus have not proved they have the authority of the landowner, point out to the assessor the BPA's Code of Practice section 7 as below. Copy these sections of the COP into your comments so it's there in front of them and they don't have to look for it.
7 Written authorisation of the landowner
7.1 If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges.
7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:
a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.
The document titled 'Signed Landowner Authority' submitted by CP Plus (enter page number here) as evidence in lieu of a copy of a contract between themselves and their client British Land, fails to prove they have the necessary authority to pursue parking charges in the following respects :
It doesn't say that CP Plus are required to keep to the Code of Practice, as required by 7.1
It does not set out the definition of the relevant land so the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined. As required by 7.3a
It fails to say who has the responsibility for putting up signs. As required by 7.3d
It fails to state the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement. As required by 7.3b
Also point out that the signature on the document purporting to be on behalf of Meadowhall is unintelligible. There is not a printed name of this person or position in the company given for this person, so it is impossible to know who this person is and therefore whether they have necessary authority within the company to give such permissions to CP Plus and sign this document. The signature is also undated.
For the above reasons CP Plus have failed to prove they have the authority to issue and pursue parking charges.
Other points that might help your rebuttal :
Incorrectly issued Notice to Driver/Parking Charge Notice
The Parking Charge Notice issued by means of a 'Notice to Driver' gives the reason for the alleged contravention and issue of the PCN as 'Parking in a restricted area'.
On the signs in the car parks as seen in the image in CP Plus's evidence, there is no such 'offence' or contravention as 'parking in a restricted area' listed in the terms and conditions.
Also the photograph of the vehicle provided as evidence by CP Plus does not show or prove that the vehicle was indeed parked in a restricted area. There are no signs within the car park denoting restricted areas, neither are there any markings on the car park road surfaces marking out such areas.
No evidence of a Notice to Keeper
As CP Plus do not know the name of the driver they are attempting to transfer the liability for the alleged charge from the driver to the keeper of the vehicle by utilising Schedule 4 of the Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012.
To be able to do this they must after they issued the Notice to Driver and did not receive payment or the drivers details, apply to the DVLA for the Keeper's details and then issue an effective Notice to Keeper to them.
There is no evidence that such a Notice to Keeper was issued by CP Plus to the appellant.0 -
I can not thank you all enough!!!!
I'll let you know as soon as I receive a response from POPLA with there decision.0 -
Have you sent in your comments on CP Plus's evidence?0
-
Is it possible for you to post a copy of your POPLA appeal on here. I'm currently fighting a Meadowhall parking ticket myself and would be interested to see what you have included.
Thanks.0 -
wrighteye1 wrote: »Is it possible for you to post a copy of your POPLA appeal on here. I'm currently fighting a Meadowhall parking ticket myself and would be interested to see what you have included.
Thanks.
I'm not sure if it's a good idea for PinkLady to post a copy of her appeal on here while it's still ongoing at POPLA.
Her appeal should be decided in a week or two. Then we will know on what points it was won (I'm confident it will be), or if it goes the other way, why it was lost. You can then tailor you're appeal appropriately. When does yours need to be submitted by?
If you have a look on your own thread I've posted about doing some editing, which you should do ASAP.
wrighteye1's own thread ;
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=57016300 -
wrighteye1 wrote: »Is it possible for you to post a copy of your POPLA appeal on here. I'm currently fighting a Meadowhall parking ticket myself and would be interested to see what you have included.
Thanks.
Don't hijack other people's threads please. You clearly agreed not to!
Keep to your own thread and read the Newbies Sticky for a head start/best current advice.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards