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
    • petere123
    • By petere123 19th Apr 17, 7:33 PM
    • 26Posts
    • 12Thanks
    petere123
    POPLA APPEAL LOST despite strong rebuttals to desperate 80 page operator evidence
    • #1
    • 19th Apr 17, 7:33 PM
    POPLA APPEAL LOST despite strong rebuttals to desperate 80 page operator evidence 19th Apr 17 at 7:33 PM
    Title of thread changed to update.
    Rest of the thread, and link to operator evidence pack below.

    POPLA APPEAL LOST despite strong POINT BY POINT rebuttal of 80 pages of generic nonsense evidence pack and strong appeal letter.
    Despite great advice here and many hours work.

    Original appeal to operator (by default identified self as driver) was on medical grounds. Genuine, but ignored completely.

    Appeal addressed 9 points, from signage, anpr, landowner authority etc.

    "POPLA request for Comments on operator evidence" included; authority not proven, signage inadequate (eg photos 3 yrs old, not of this site, aerial view showing majority of signs at periphery, not central area) etc.

    Whatever mistakes etc I may have made from having to dive into this new subject area, Assessor has allowed operator to do whatever they like, by cherry picking which of my points to assess or ignore.

    POPLA ASSESSOR RESPONSE and MY REBUTTALS of desperate Operator evidence available.

    Thanks folks. Your help greatly appreciated again; overstayed because of geuine, ongoing, unpredictable illness. Now exhausted from the hard yards of preparing proper appeal & rebuttal rather than be exploited. And on it goes ...



    scribd.com/document/346041704/Parking-Eye-Generic-Nonsense-Evidence

    hello folks,

    Submitted detailed points on 4 pages to POPLA, based on technical/legal argument found here.
    Medical evidence (unintended long sleep from anaemia/exhaustion) in 1st appeal did ID me as driver. I didn't bother referring to this evidence in POPLA appeal.

    POPLA have now shared the generic nonsense submitted by parking operator .
    Should I comment to point out the irrelevance of their "evidence" ?
    POPLA letter states "Comments required"

    Should i comment or leave it alone?. Got 7 days
    Thanks for any advice !.
    Last edited by petere123; 03-05-2017 at 7:23 PM. Reason: updated title to POPLA loss
Page 1
    • pould
    • By pould 20th Apr 17, 10:22 AM
    • 97 Posts
    • 83 Thanks
    pould
    • #2
    • 20th Apr 17, 10:22 AM
    • #2
    • 20th Apr 17, 10:22 AM
    Since we don't know what evidence the operator has shared, how can any of us tell you how to respond?
    • waamo
    • By waamo 20th Apr 17, 10:30 AM
    • 1,292 Posts
    • 1,380 Thanks
    waamo
    • #3
    • 20th Apr 17, 10:30 AM
    • #3
    • 20th Apr 17, 10:30 AM
    Yes you should refute the operators evidence. As above without seeing any of it that's as much advice anyone can give.
    This space for hire.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 20th Apr 17, 10:47 AM
    • 12,603 Posts
    • 19,386 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #4
    • 20th Apr 17, 10:47 AM
    • #4
    • 20th Apr 17, 10:47 AM
    You need to go through it point by point and rebut anything and everything that is disputed (and why it is disputed) and/or anything that is plainly wrong.

    A catch-all generic statement like 'I dispute this parking company's evidence' will not do.

    Please note that you cannot introduce new appeal points not already included in your original POPLA appeal.
    NEWBIES - wise up - DO NOT IGNORE A PARKING CHARGE NOTICE - you have been warned!

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.

    Please note: I am NOT involved in any 'paid for' appeals service.
    • petere123
    • By petere123 23rd Apr 17, 5:26 PM
    • 26 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    petere123
    • #5
    • 23rd Apr 17, 5:26 PM
    • #5
    • 23rd Apr 17, 5:26 PM
    Thanks folks, especially your response Umkomaas.

    scribd.com/document/346041704/Parking-Eye-Generic-Nonsense-Evidence

    Attached is Parking Eye "Evidence" for my POPLA appeal.
    Might be helpful to someone, or you may want to comment, as I've been invited to 'provide comments' to POPLA.
    Obviously a generic response, mainly proof of signage, statement on Anpr credibility etc, rather than addressing any of my 9 appeal points.

    scribd.com/document/346041704/Parking-Eye-Generic-Nonsense-Evidence

    80 page document, personal details removed.
    50% is photos of signage, site layout etc
    Last edited by petere123; 23-04-2017 at 5:34 PM.
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 23rd Apr 17, 5:45 PM
    • 38,878 Posts
    • 77,596 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    • #6
    • 23rd Apr 17, 5:45 PM
    • #6
    • 23rd Apr 17, 5:45 PM
    Thanks folks, especially your response Umkomaas.

    scribd.com/document/346041704/Parking-Eye-Generic-Nonsense-Evidence

    Attached is Parking Eye "Evidence" for my POPLA appeal.
    Might be helpful to someone, or you may want to comment, as I've been invited to 'provide comments' to POPLA.
    Obviously a generic response, mainly proof of signage, statement on Anpr credibility etc, rather than addressing any of my 9 appeal points.

    scribd.com/document/346041704/Parking-Eye-Generic-Nonsense-Evidence

    80 page document, personal details removed.
    50% is photos of signage, site layout etc
    Originally posted by petere123
    As above, you need to rubbish each and every point they make, and strengthen/re-iterate your original appeal points at the same time. In addition, if your original appeal points have not been addressed you should point out that since they have not been rebutted by parking lie, the assessor must conclude that your point is valid and therefore allow the appeal.

    http://scribd.com/document/346041704/Parking-Eye-Generic-Nonsense-Evidence

    A lot of that document appears blank when I try to view it.

    We really need to know what you put in your initial appeal, what you put in you PoPLA appeal, and what parking lie have said in their rebuttal in order to comment. Since I can't see any of that information I can't help you. If others can see it they may be able to help.
    Last edited by Fruitcake; 23-04-2017 at 5:52 PM.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • petere123
    • By petere123 23rd Apr 17, 5:50 PM
    • 26 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    petere123
    • #7
    • 23rd Apr 17, 5:50 PM
    • #7
    • 23rd Apr 17, 5:50 PM
    RE: "point out that since they have not been rebutted by parking lie, the assessor must conclude that your point is valid"


    Great, that's very helpful. Thanks Fruitcake
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 23rd Apr 17, 11:15 PM
    • 45,805 Posts
    • 58,763 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #8
    • 23rd Apr 17, 11:15 PM
    • #8
    • 23rd Apr 17, 11:15 PM
    David Newman is not a 'Parking Administrator' for Welcome Break, he is a Business Development Manager - why would he sign with a different job title?:

    https://uk.linkedin.com/in/dave-newman-453597109

    In this case he signed as Business Development Manager so why would he change it:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=71485385

    So who has really signed that so-called Witness Statement? It is in any case, overwritten/overlaid so as to be illegible.

    The so-called Witness Statement fails to identify the vehicle nor even the date, let alone the parking event - it actually says the parking event was 'between 1st October 2016 to 31st March 2017'. What? WHAT?

    None of the photos prove that they were taken on the Northbound side of this location nor even that these signs are at this location at all. Even if it is this location (who knows) the only dated photos are from 2014.

    One photo provided by PE states that the tariff is 11 for 2 - 24 hours, whilst others conflict with that. Is POPLA supposed to guess which is right, where this location is, what the tariff is and which signs actually exist in 2017?

    The photos later in the desperate 80 pages of generic 'evidence' purporting to add a pay-by-phone option are deliberately undated - why?

    Finally, they have stated wrongly that ‘Evidence G’ shows ‘a system generated printout showing that the VRN does not appear on the date of the event’. Evidence G is nothing of the sort, it’s a blank (with no location nor date) white list look-up. This merely checks if a VRN is on an exempt list of staff vehicles - but where? For all I or the POPLA Assessor know this could be a search for my VRN at a Hotel in Scotland on Christmas Day 2014...a site code tells us nothing. This could be any Services or Hotel.

    This enormous evidence pack is no evidence at all of the signage, nor authority from the landowner re THIS parking event, nor even any evidence at all that the VRN was looked up for the right day at the right location.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 23-04-2017 at 11:18 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • petere123
    • By petere123 24th Apr 17, 12:19 AM
    • 26 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    petere123
    • #9
    • 24th Apr 17, 12:19 AM
    • #9
    • 24th Apr 17, 12:19 AM
    Thanks CouponMad; a huge help in addition to addressing their failure to address my 9 substantive points for appeal.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 24th Apr 17, 1:20 AM
    • 45,805 Posts
    • 58,763 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Email that to POPLA if it doesn't fit in the POPLA portal and ask them to confirm the Assessor will read your comments before making a decision.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 24th Apr 17, 11:04 AM
    • 6,499 Posts
    • 5,408 Thanks
    The Deep
    They seem confused as to how much the parking costs. Some signs say 2-24 hours 12, some 2-6 hours 5.00 another 2-24 hours 11.

    Also, that raft of T&Cs is surely unreadable. Count the words and measure the size of the print Do they honestly expect everyone who parks there to read it?


    They seem to have shot themselves in the foot.
    Last edited by The Deep; 24-04-2017 at 11:09 AM.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • petere123
    • By petere123 24th Apr 17, 12:31 PM
    • 26 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    petere123

    A lot of document appears blank.
    We really need to know what you put in your initial appeal, what you put in you PoPLA appeal, and what parking lie have said in their rebuttal in order to comment
    Originally posted by Fruitcake
    Blanked out personal info, letters from Parking Eye, photos of reg number etc. Could only delete text, not pages.

    POPLA appeal letter here
    scribd.com/document/346142935/POPLA-appeal-Charnock-Richard-North[/url]

    Original appeal to PE was on medical grounds (pernicious anaemia & neurological meds mean episodes of unpredictable exhaustion).
    Slept at services for 2+hrs without ever leaving car.
    Provided proof of meds, medical condition etc, which by default identified me as driver. PE rejected appeal as "didn't buy a ticket".
    Last edited by petere123; 24-04-2017 at 12:49 PM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 24th Apr 17, 8:38 PM
    • 45,805 Posts
    • 58,763 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    OK, so get that rebuttal in and show up to POPLA, all the holes in this pile of old tripe they've filed.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • petere123
    • By petere123 3rd May 17, 7:20 PM
    • 26 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    petere123
    Thread title now changed and update to POPLA appeal
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 3rd May 17, 9:03 PM
    • 12,603 Posts
    • 19,386 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Thread title now changed and update to POPLA appeal
    Originally posted by petere123
    What exactly did POPLA say in dismissing your appeal?
    NEWBIES - wise up - DO NOT IGNORE A PARKING CHARGE NOTICE - you have been warned!

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.

    Please note: I am NOT involved in any 'paid for' appeals service.
    • petere123
    • By petere123 3rd May 17, 10:10 PM
    • 26 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    petere123
    Assessor seems to have made no reference at all to 33 points of "Comments on Operator Evidence". Dumb, generic evidence. Grrrrr.
    Also some points raised in original appeal completely ignored. appeal.

    [B]Received from Popla today/B], just 7 days after "Comments on Operator Evidence" submitted
    The appellant failed to make an appropriate payment for parking time.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant states he contest the charge as the Registered Keeper. The appellant states the operator has not met the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. The appellant has raised landowner authority. The appellant has raised Section 21.3 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. The appellant states the driver was a genuine customer. The appellant has raised unfair parking practices.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    The terms and conditions of the site state “Tariffs include the first 2 hours free parking. Please pay for parking at: WH Smith or Petrol Forecourts. Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: 100”. The operator has issued a 100 Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to the appellant failing to make an appropriate payment for parking time. The site operates Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras, the operator has provided photographic images of the appellant’s vehicle MW11 UEX entering the site at 15:52, exiting at 18:39; the period of stay was two hours and 46 minutes. The appellant states he contest the charge as the Registered Keeper. The appellant states the operator has not met the requirements of the PoFA 2012. I note the appellant’s comments however, I can see that in the appellants appeal to the operator he has selected himself as the driver. As I know who the driver of the vehicle on the day in question was I no not need to consider whether the requirements of PoFA 2012 were complied with. Operator’s only use PoFA 2012 when it is attempting to transfer liability from the driver of the vehicle to the Registered Keeper of the vehicle. As the appellant named himself as the driver, the operator do not need to transfer liability therefore, they do not need to comply with PoFA 2012. The appellant has raised landowner authority. I note the appellant’s comments however, the operator has provided a witness statement which confirms the operator has the appropriate landowner authority to issue PCN’s on the site in question. The appellant has raised Section 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice. In terms of the technology of the ANPR cameras themselves, the audits the ANPR systems in use by parking operators in order to ensure that they are in good working order and that the data collected is accurate. Independent research has found that the technology is generally accurate. Unless POPLA is presented with sufficient evidence to prove otherwise, we consider the technology was working at the time of the alleged improper parking. The appellant states the driver was a genuine customer. I note the appellant’s comments however, regardless of this parking tariffs still apply. As the appellant failed to make a payment for parking, a PCN was issued correctly. The appellant has raised unfair parking practices. I note the appellant’s comments however, it is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure when they enter a site they have understood and complied with the terms and conditions of the site. If the appellant did not agree with the terms and conditions, there would have been a reasonable opportunity to leave the site before entering into a contract with the operator. The operator has provided a system print out which confirms the appellant failed to make an appropriate payment for parking time. Based upon the evidence provided, I can see that the appellant remained on site therefore, agreeing to comply with the terms and conditions. I am satisfied that the signage clearly informs motorists that a payment for parking should be made. As the appellant remained on site without making a payment for parking, he has failed to comply with the terms and conditions. As such, the PCN was issued correctly
    Last edited by petere123; 03-05-2017 at 10:15 PM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 3rd May 17, 10:18 PM
    • 45,805 Posts
    • 58,763 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Assessor seems to have made no reference at all to 33 points of "Comments on Operator Evidence". Dumb, generic evidence. Grrrrr.
    Email POPLA and state the Assessor has clearly not read the comments on the Evidence, so ask why. Specifically ask why the Assessor thinks 'The operator has provided a system print out which confirms the appellant failed to make an appropriate payment for parking time' when the Comments showed that was no such evidence (being undated and without a location on it, this is not evidence). State that this is a complaint about a procedural error and you require another Assessor to review the missed Comments which exposed the 'evidence' as flawed (signs with conflicting tariffs/info, and the useless blank 'White list' as well as the questionable contract signatory whose job title is not as shown). It is clear the Assessor did not have these comments and/or failed to read them and take them into account. Procedural error.

    Don't say anything else, don't call the Comments a rebuttal and use the words 'procedural error'.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 03-05-2017 at 10:23 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • petere123
    • By petere123 4th May 17, 3:58 PM
    • 26 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    petere123
    Thanks very much CouponMad.
    Phonecall and email request for Complaint against Procedural Error done today. Up to 10 day wait.
    • petere123
    • By petere123 12th May 17, 1:59 PM
    • 26 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    petere123
    And still, after Procedural error complaint, POPLA cherry-pick points, and provide superficial reasoning.
    eg signage - majority of signs are around periphery of parking area, not the central area. My 33 point response to Parking Eye's desperate generic "Evidence pack" basically ignored.
    The witness statement they refer to was signed by Business Development Manager masquerading a Parking Attendant job title on this occasion (thanks Coupon Mad for bringing my attention to that). But of course that not addressed.
    And no name provided for the response I got below (numbers 1-3 added myself for ease of reading)
    Where is the justice and possibility of proper scrutiny with these people?


    1/ Whilst I note your comments that have been provided in relation to the operator's evidence pack, I am satisfied that the assessor has covered the comments that you have addressed in the decision outcome.


    2/ We have referred to the BPA Code of Practice in relation to the signage at the site, and having assessed the photographs that have been provided of the signage, we are satisfied that terms clearly stated that motorists are to pay for parking and that a PCN will be issued for failing to comply with those terms. Although the photographs are dated before the contravention date, you have not provided any evidence to POPLA to suggest that different signs are displayed at the site, and so we can only conclude that those signs are still displayed unless evidence shows otherwise.

    3/ The parking operator has provided evidence of a witness statement, confirming that permission is given from the landowner for them to operate on this piece of land. Therefore, the operator has permission to issue PCN's to motorists who park on this land, when this is deemed necessary. On this occasion, you parked without making a payment therefore, you breached the terms and so you were issued with a PCN.

    I also note that you have said that the operator cannot provide evidence of having a reasonable cause to request the keeper details from the DVLA. However, as the operator is a member of the BPA, they are entitled to request this information from the DVLA if the driver has not been identified. I also note that in this case, you did identify yourself as the driver and so, liability did not need to be transferred to the keeper of the vehicle.

    Ultimately, the decision that has been issued on this case is correct. I understand that this is not the decision that you had hoped for however, this is now the end of POPLA's process and there is no further opportunity to appeal to us.

    Yours sincerely

    POPLA Team
    Last edited by petere123; 12-05-2017 at 2:06 PM.
    • freester
    • By freester 12th May 17, 2:16 PM
    • 57 Posts
    • 74 Thanks
    freester
    My first PCN resulted in a kind of similar situation to you. Appealed to Operator with a not very good appeal. Then my POPLA appeal was terrible. I revealed who was driving and used mitigating circumstances and a poor 'didn't see the signage' argument.

    Then I found this website (too late). Tried to rebut the generic evidence pack but I think if you've added anything new in this rebuttal it just gets ignored. On the excuse 'no new evidence accepted'.

    I can understand your frustration. I'd be tempted (and I did in my case) send a strongly worded letter back when the letters post POPLA rejection start arriving saying:

    Thanks for your letter, since appeal and POPLA rejection I have familiarised myself with the BPA Code of Practice. I have determined your signage at this site does not comply. Also thank you for pointing out the Beavis case to me. Again your signage does not compare to the 'clear' signage in this case.

    (If they are claiming non-payment results in CCJ point out they are misleading - CCJ only results IF County Court finds against you AND you don't pay up in time.)

    Due to this new information I am fully prepared to fight this alleged debt in Small Claims Court. Do not contact me any further unless you issue a Letter Before Claim.
    Last edited by freester; 12-05-2017 at 2:19 PM.
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

155Posts Today

1,207Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • The strange thing with a 4yr old is having to play & smile while inside feeling sick for those in trauma in my birth town #Manchester

  • Just a quick ta-ta for now. I'm taking the week off for family time with mini and Mrs MSE. So I won't be here much. Back after the bank hol

  • Ugh another one trying it! Beware https://t.co/Ab9fCRA76F

  • Follow Martin