Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • scottc1978
    • By scottc1978 7th Oct 16, 7:09 AM
    • 17Posts
    • 0Thanks
    scottc1978
    Parking Eye POPLA
    • #1
    • 7th Oct 16, 7:09 AM
    Parking Eye POPLA 7th Oct 16 at 7:09 AM
    Hi,

    We are hoping you can offer some advice on an issue with Parking Eye.

    We stayed at the Premier Inn adjacent to Manchester Airport. There is also a Holiday Inn on site.

    Parking Eye have issued a Parking Charge Notice but it states Holiday Inn. We were parked in the Premier Inn. They share the same entrance road which the ANPR covers.

    We appealed on the basis that we were in the Premier Inn but this has been rejected. We provided our Premier Inn invoice as evidence.

    Parking Eye have issued me a POPLA code.

    How should we approach the POPLA appeal?

    The date of the event was 8th July and the original letter was issued 29th July.

    Event was in England and register keeper resides in Scotland.

    Thanks,
Page 1
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 7th Oct 16, 8:57 AM
    • 40,525 Posts
    • 52,409 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #2
    • 7th Oct 16, 8:57 AM
    • #2
    • 7th Oct 16, 8:57 AM
    I hope you didn't say who was driving because you have a win at POPLA on the cards for a 'registered keeper' appellant (no driver admitted).
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • scottc1978
    • By scottc1978 7th Oct 16, 9:14 AM
    • 17 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    scottc1978
    • #3
    • 7th Oct 16, 9:14 AM
    • #3
    • 7th Oct 16, 9:14 AM
    No, never said who was driving.
    • Ralph-y
    • By Ralph-y 7th Oct 16, 9:53 AM
    • 2,248 Posts
    • 2,731 Thanks
    Ralph-y
    • #4
    • 7th Oct 16, 9:53 AM
    • #4
    • 7th Oct 16, 9:53 AM
    ok .... so start by reading through the newbies thread

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4816822

    it will give much information ... even if you are past some of it ....

    you can skim read the sections on IPC mobsters , as ParkingLie are part of the BPA ....

    then to start drafting up your POLA appeal go to

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=71414428#post71414428

    work backwards and look for appeals that you can crib from

    do not ignore !

    while you are hard at work on all this ... please spend a short while helping us and the cause ....


    This is a campaign of asking people to keep sending Theresa May actual hard copies of the trash they've been deluged with. Let her advisers' desks overflow with annoying paperwork re PPCs.

    No emails, all letters from genuine people pouring their hearts out. Write to your MP as well as Mrs May:

    https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/211923909-Why-not-write-to-your-MP

    The more the better, write it yourself if you are able and enclose copies of the threatograms and rubbish thrown at you.

    Do not do this by email - make your paperwork land with a thump on desks, just like it all landed in a very unwelcome way on your doormat.

    Apparently the DCLG are looking to make an announcement before the year end so let's make MP's and Mrs May aware that action needs to be strong. You can be sure that the BPA and IPC suits are lobbying Parliament and meeting their friends in suits.

    So let the consumers' voices be heard.

    (courtesy of CM)

    good luck

    Ralph
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 7th Oct 16, 11:27 AM
    • 40,525 Posts
    • 52,409 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #5
    • 7th Oct 16, 11:27 AM
    • #5
    • 7th Oct 16, 11:27 AM
    Was this a hire car then, can you work out why it took so long to be issued?
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • scottc1978
    • By scottc1978 10th Oct 16, 3:01 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    scottc1978
    • #6
    • 10th Oct 16, 3:01 PM
    • #6
    • 10th Oct 16, 3:01 PM
    No hire car. Not sure why it took so long.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 10th Oct 16, 3:27 PM
    • 40,525 Posts
    • 52,409 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #7
    • 10th Oct 16, 3:27 PM
    • #7
    • 10th Oct 16, 3:27 PM
    Good. As long as the the original letter that was issued 29th July was not marked 'reminder', you will win if you word your POPLA appeal well, as I said:

    I hope you didn't say who was driving because you have a win at POPLA on the cards for a 'registered keeper' appellant (no driver admitted).
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Search the forum for 'blank space'. There is a person I've replied to today with the same PCN (as long as yours was not a reminder) so you can find that as your top search result to save us typing! The blank space refers to the (deliberately) missing paragraph in that late PCN which means they can't hold a keeper liable as they missed the deadline.

    Then show us your draft POPLA appeal, no rush. Search for other threads first where PE have served a PCN with no keeper liability possible.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 10-10-2016 at 3:31 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • scottc1978
    • By scottc1978 11th Oct 16, 9:09 AM
    • 17 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    scottc1978
    • #8
    • 11th Oct 16, 9:09 AM
    • #8
    • 11th Oct 16, 9:09 AM
    Thanks for your help.

    Will post appeal up shortly.

    In my appeal should i mention about the Premier Inn/Holiday Inn bit?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th Oct 16, 9:11 AM
    • 40,525 Posts
    • 52,409 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #9
    • 11th Oct 16, 9:11 AM
    • #9
    • 11th Oct 16, 9:11 AM
    Yep you could have an extra appeal point that the PCN does not identify the car park where the only parking event actually occurred.

    You also have an extra appeal point that you cannot be held liable and are out of jurisdiction as you stay in Scotland, where the POFA does not apply.

    Plus all/most of the usual template appeal points shown in 'POPLA Decisions' (penultimate page, look at the posts in late September by me, Edna Basher and IanMSpencer).
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • scottc1978
    • By scottc1978 11th Oct 16, 10:15 AM
    • 17 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    scottc1978
    Re: ParkingEye PCN, reference code xxxxxx/xxxxxx
    POPLA Code: xxxxxxxxxx

    I am the registered keeper of the vehicle related to the parking charge notice (reference above).
    I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge on the grounds listed below and request that they are all considered.

    1) ParkingEye's Parking Charge Notice is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
    2) The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself
    3) No evidence to show that the ANPR system is reliable
    4) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge
    5) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
    6) Parking Charge Notice does not identify the car park where the only parking event actually occurred.

    1) ParkingEye's Parking Charge Notice is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

    Under schedule 4, paragraph 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, for the creditor (ParkingEye) to have the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle (myself), certain conditions must be met as stated in schedule 4, paragraphs 5, 6, 11, and 12. It is my belief that ParkingEye have failed to fulfill the conditions of paragraph 6; which states that ParkingEye must have provided myself as the registered keeper with a notice in accordance with paragraph 9. Paragraph 9 states:

    The notice must be given by—

    (a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or

    (b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.

    The applicable section here is (b) as the Parking Charge Notice that I have received was delivered by post. Furthermore, paragraph 9(5) states:

    The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.

    The Parking Charge Notice sent to myself as Registered Keeper was issued on 29/07/2016. This is 21 days after the event, 07/07/2016 and as such is 20 days after the 'specified period of parking ended,' and is therefore outside the 'relevant period' of 14 days. As this notice was issued six days after the 'relevant period' had ended, it would be impossible for the notice to have been delivered within the 'relevant period' as required under paragraph 9(4)(b). This means that ParkingEye have failed to act within the legislation set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and as such can not pursue me, as the registered keeper, for any unpaid parking charges.

    Furthermore the Parking Charge Notice from ParkingEye makes no reference to keeper liability, as is required under paragraph 9(2)(f), which states that the notice must:

    warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—

    (i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and

    (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,

    the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;

    This is a clear and strict requirement under the relevant legislation that ParkingEye have not complied with and as such can not rely upon to hold me liable as keeper.
    As you can see, we stay in Scotland and we are aware that the POFA 2012 does not apply to us and we are out of jurisdiction for English Courts. We are also aware that, because the event alleged was in England, we can still have a POPLA code if you do not cancel. We strongly advise this is cancelled as you cannot win against a Scottish registered keeper appellant.

    2) The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

    There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

    In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:

    http://imgur.com/a/AkMCN

    In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.

    Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eYdphoIIDgE/VpbCpfSTaiI/AAAAAAAAE10/5uFjL528DgU/s640/Parking%2Bsign_001.jpg

    This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

    Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.
    It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

    This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

    ''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

    From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.

    The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:

    http://www-archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm

    As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:

    http://www.signazon.com/help-center/sign-letter-height-visibility-chart.aspx

    ''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2” letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3” or even larger.''

    ...and the same chart is reproduced here:

    http://www.ebay.co.uk/gds/Outdoor-Dimensional-Sign-Letter-Best-Viewing-Distance-/10000000175068392/g.html

    ''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.

    ''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''

    So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

    Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':

    (1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
    (2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

    The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

    This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:

    http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/106.html

    This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

    So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.

    3) No evidence to show that the ANPR system is reliable
    This Operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. I require the Operator to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show the vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that this Operator must produce evidence in response to these points and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the Operator in ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence form the Operator was 'fundamentally flawed' as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.
    ParkingEye has not provided any evidence to show that their system is reliable, accurate or maintained. I request that you uphold my appeal based on this.

    4) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge

    In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

    Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

    As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made because the fact remains I am only the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

    The burden of proof rests with the Operator, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

    Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA 2012 was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

    Understanding keeper liability
    “There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

    There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''
    Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

    This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
    ''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''

    5) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

    As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

    Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

    Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

    Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

    7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

    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

    6) Parking Charge Notice does not identify the car park where the only parking event actually occurred.
    The Parking Charge Notice identifies the “Holiday Inn Express Manchester Airport” as the location of the Parking Charge. The only parking event actually occurred at the “Premier Inn Manchester Airport”
    • scottc1978
    • By scottc1978 12th Oct 16, 7:20 AM
    • 17 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    scottc1978
    Hi,

    How does the draft appeal look?

    Thanks.


    Yep you could have an extra appeal point that the PCN does not identify the car park where the only parking event actually occurred.

    You also have an extra appeal point that you cannot be held liable and are out of jurisdiction as you stay in Scotland, where the POFA does not apply.

    Plus all/most of the usual template appeal points shown in 'POPLA Decisions' (penultimate page, look at the posts in late September by me, Edna Basher and IanMSpencer).
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    • bargepole
    • By bargepole 12th Oct 16, 7:44 AM
    • 1,855 Posts
    • 5,022 Thanks
    bargepole
    Hi,

    How does the draft appeal look?

    Thanks.
    Originally posted by scottc1978
    POPLA appeals are not my speciality, I only tend to get involved once a court claim has been issued. No doubt C-M and others who deal with this stuff daily, will add their comments.

    But it does seem ridiculously disproportionate to have to rewrite War and Peace just to appeal a £100 parking charge. I lost the will to live half way through reading it, let's hope the POPLA assessor feels the same and seizes on one of the grounds to allow the appeal, so that they don't have to adjudicate on the rest of the points.

    But in any event, PE won't be able to pursue you through the courts, as a Scottish resident you are outside the jurisdiction of the County Court of England & Wales, and if they ever tried an action in the Sheriff Court, they would have to know the name of the driver as POFA 2012 doesn't apply to Scotland. So in this case, you could have just binned the whole thing.
    Speeding cases fought: 24 (3 of mine, 21 for others). Cases won: 20. Points on licence: 0. Private Parking Court Cases: Won 17. Lost 5.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th Oct 16, 9:08 AM
    • 40,525 Posts
    • 52,409 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    But in any event, PE won't be able to pursue you through the courts, as a Scottish resident you are outside the jurisdiction of the County Court of England & Wales, and if they ever tried an action in the Sheriff Court, they would have to know the name of the driver as POFA 2012 doesn't apply to Scotland. So in this case, you could have just binned the whole thing.
    Agreed - but this will stop all the hassle stone dead because it will win, and was easy enough for the OP to copy from the templates here now. No need for re-writes, no need for newbies to use old examples either. I'm sure the OP would rather not field debt collector alarmist rubbish letters for months and then worry that PE might some day start suing in Scotland as well/look through their back-catalogue for victims.

    To the OP, 'War and Peace' is my style of POPLA appeal, as bargepole knows with a wry smile! It still works - even when fielding LBCCCs for friends, football fans & colleagues, I have never had a case proceed to court papers (they give up & cancel) and I've never lost a POPLA appeal that I've done for people in person, for the occasional thanks of a nice bottle of wine or some flowers from a friend (this is done for free on the forum of course).

    let's hope the POPLA assessor feels the same and seizes on one of the grounds to allow the appeal, so that they don't have to adjudicate on the rest of the points.
    Indeed - but the main aim is that the operator loses the will to live so they never contest it. This is what I expect PE to do as they can't win.

    With this bit below you just need to change 'you' to 'the operator' because this is going to POPLA to read so you are not writing directly to ParkingEye.
    As you can see, we stay in Scotland and we are aware that the POFA 2012 does not apply to us and we are out of jurisdiction for English Courts. We are also aware that, because the event alleged was in England, we can still have a POPLA code if you do not cancel. We strongly advise this is cancelled as you the operator cannot win against a Scottish registered keeper appellant.
    And re this, I'd have it as point #1, nice and short at the start to get the Assessor onside - and add the suggested sentence shown in red below:
    6) 1) Parking Charge Notice does not identify the car park where the only parking event actually occurred.
    The Parking Charge Notice identifies the “Holiday Inn Express Manchester Airport” as the location of the Parking Charge. The only parking event actually occurred at the “Premier Inn Manchester Airport”. The occupants of the car confirm that there is also a Holiday Inn on site but the location is wrongly described on the PCN which is a specific failing of mandatory information.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 12-10-2016 at 9:17 AM.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

275Posts Today

1,630Users online

Martin's Twitter