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
    • wrighteye1
    • By wrighteye1 29th Aug 17, 9:08 PM
    • 21Posts
    • 8Thanks
    wrighteye1
    POPLA Appeal Help
    • #1
    • 29th Aug 17, 9:08 PM
    POPLA Appeal Help 29th Aug 17 at 9:08 PM
    A couple of months ago we received a parking charge notice while parked at Meadowhall shopping centre. With hindsight, after reading the newbies post, and probably using common sense we should have taken a photo of where we were parked and appealed to the shopping centre management as the ticket was for "parking in a restricted area" which we weren't, we were just parked in a "standard" bay, but we didn't so this is where we are.
    Approximately 6 weeks after the ticket we received the notice to keeper to which we replied and appealed using the BPA template letter on this site, the parking company, CP PLUS Ltd, is a member of the BPA.
    A couple of weeks after that we received an email asking us to confirm the name and address of the driver, which we declined to do.
    A couple of weeks after that we received an email saying the appeal had been rejected, which is at the bottom of this post (with some links removed to allow me to post) and providing us with a POPLA verification code.
    My main question is is it too late to appeal regarding the nature of the notice, i.e. that she wasn't parked in a restricted area and is the onus on them to prove that she was, do they need to have photo evidence or should we have it.
    Any advice on this and the best way to word the POPLA appeal would be gratefully received,

    Thankyou.

    "Thank you for your email regarding the above Parking Charge Notice (PCN).

    I have carefully reviewed the case and have considered the points that you raised. Unfortunately, I cannot cancel the PCN and it is still payable. I have explained my findings in more detail below.

    My findings

    The site in question is subject to terms and conditions, which are stated on signs throughout the area. As these terms were breached on the date in question, a PCN was correctly and legitimately issued.

    Internet templates

    I must also stress that simply sending in standard template responses, most likely obtained from the internet, will not resolve the matter. In addition, I would recommend that professional legal advice be sought on this matter as an alternative.

    Signage

    The signage on site is sufficient and is in line with the guidelines laid down by the British Parking Association (BPA).

    The majority of motorists who park at the site do so without receiving a PCN. This is undoubtedly due to the fact that they are aware of the terms and conditions of the site. If, as you claim, the signage was inadequate, the terms and conditions of the site would be unknown to the majority of drivers and many more PCNs would be issued here.

    What you need to do now

    You now have three options to choose from:

    1) Pay the PCN at the prevailing sum of £120.00 by 08/09/2017. Payment can be made online or by phone. Go to or phone 0208 528 4122. You can find full details of how to pay on the PCN issued to the vehicle and/or on the letter(s) sent if applicable.

    2) Make an appeal to POPLA (Independent Appeals Service) by appealing online at (verification code: ). The only grounds for making an appeal are stated on the website and to be considered the appeal must be received by POPLA within 28 days of the date of this correspondence. Please note that if you opt to appeal to POPLA and the appeal is unsuccessful you will be only able to settle the PCN at the full amount of £120.00.

    3) If you choose to not make payment or appeal, the amount outstanding may be sought via a debt recovery company and/or court action where further costs may be incurred as a result.

    More Information

    By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such, should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as explained above."
    Last edited by wrighteye1; 04-09-2017 at 4:54 PM.
Page 2
    • wrighteye1
    • By wrighteye1 6th Sep 17, 7:44 PM
    • 21 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    wrighteye1
    hxxp://i67.tinypic.com/2e3wvh5.jpg
    • wrighteye1
    • By wrighteye1 6th Sep 17, 7:46 PM
    • 21 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    wrighteye1
    Tried posting again after changing to hxxp and it allowed me to post this time!
    • RobinofLoxley
    • By RobinofLoxley 6th Sep 17, 7:50 PM
    • 161 Posts
    • 267 Thanks
    RobinofLoxley
    http://i67.tinypic.com/2e3wvh5.jpg

    Yes it's the same as the one I saw in another Meadowhall thread (not Pink Lady) and spotted a flaw.

    The 4th paragraph down from where it says "parked in a restricted area" says;

    "If payment is not received within 14 days from the date of issue of this Parking Charge Notice the details of the registered keeper will be obtained from the DVLA"

    The wording "14 days" is wrong, they can't request the keepers details from the DVLA until day 29 at the earliest. The driver has 28 days to pay.

    This means the NTD is not valid and you should mention it in your appeal, along with a picture of the NTD. I noticed in the evidence CP Plus submitted in PinkLady's POPLA appeal they didn't provide a scan of the original NTD windscreen ticket but something made up to show what was on it.
    Last edited by RobinofLoxley; 06-09-2017 at 8:13 PM.
    • wrighteye1
    • By wrighteye1 6th Sep 17, 8:29 PM
    • 21 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    wrighteye1
    Please find below a link to the photo of the NTK if that is of any help.

    hxxp://i64.tinypic.com/2582l8y.jpg
    • RobinofLoxley
    • By RobinofLoxley 6th Sep 17, 8:39 PM
    • 161 Posts
    • 267 Thanks
    RobinofLoxley
    Link to above.

    http://i64.tinypic.com/2582l8y.jpg
    • wrighteye1
    • By wrighteye1 6th Sep 17, 8:44 PM
    • 21 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    wrighteye1
    Does the picture in the other Meadowhall thread show the back of the ticket where it states
    "Payment must be made within 28 days of the issue of this Parking Charge Notice but if payment is received within 14 days a reduced charge will apply as specified on the front of this ticket and be accepted in full and final settlement. If payment is not received within 28 days,for the reasons set out overleaf we have reasonable cause to apply to the DVLA for details of the registered keeper"
    Does this matter in relation to the 4th paragraph on the front?
    Thanks.
    • RobinofLoxley
    • By RobinofLoxley 6th Sep 17, 9:08 PM
    • 161 Posts
    • 267 Thanks
    RobinofLoxley
    Does the picture in the other Meadowhall thread show the back of the ticket where it states
    "Payment must be made within 28 days of the issue of this Parking Charge Notice but if payment is received within 14 days a reduced charge will apply as specified on the front of this ticket and be accepted in full and final settlement. If payment is not received within 28 days,for the reasons set out overleaf we have reasonable cause to apply to the DVLA for details of the registered keeper"
    Does this matter in relation to the 4th paragraph on the front?
    Thanks.
    Originally posted by wrighteye1
    Yes I saw that, don't mention it, you haven't seen it. It's the 14 days on the front that you should point out, that's where it fails to comply .
    • wrighteye1
    • By wrighteye1 6th Sep 17, 10:03 PM
    • 21 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    wrighteye1
    Ok, thanks.
    • RobinofLoxley
    • By RobinofLoxley 6th Sep 17, 11:51 PM
    • 161 Posts
    • 267 Thanks
    RobinofLoxley
    Re your point #3 The car was not parked in a restricted area.

    I think the reason CP Plus have given for issuing the PCN/NTD, 'Parked in a restricted area' is a major point in winning at POPLA.

    In the terms and conditions on the signs in the car park there is no mention of a contravention for parking in a restricted area. I think you should embed a photo (below) of the sign in your appeal to show this. Photos also break up the text and make your appeal easier on the eye.



    There are also issues with the NTD and NTK that I think you can bring up re the period of alleged parking.

    POFA paragraph 7(2)(a) states :

    7 (1) A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to driver for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.
    (2) The notice must:
    (a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.

    There isn't a period of parking given on the NTD, just a time of issue at 09.03

    Paragraph 8 of POFA states :

    8 (1) A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.
    (2) The notice must:
    (a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.

    Again there is no period parking given on the NTK, just an issue time of 09:03:53. Does that mean the car was parked for just that 1 second!
    • Pinklady0805
    • By Pinklady0805 8th Sep 17, 7:39 AM
    • 82 Posts
    • 55 Thanks
    Pinklady0805
    Have you put this bit in your appeal about getting tram to Sheffield? I don't advise this as it won't go in your favour. The signs state not to park and leave the centre.
    • wrighteye1
    • By wrighteye1 8th Sep 17, 6:00 PM
    • 21 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    wrighteye1
    Thanks to everybody for all the help and advice so far. I removed my original point 2 as advised,added the points about the NTD and NTK not being valid, added photos of the sign and generally tidied it up a little.I submitted the appeal yesterday so I'll update as soon as I get anything back.
    Once again thanks to everybody, especially Robin of Loxley, I.m sure I wouldn't have been able to do it without everybody's input!
    • wrighteye1
    • By wrighteye1 10th Sep 17, 12:08 PM
    • 21 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    wrighteye1
    I have now received the evidence pack from CPPLUS, it it ok to post it on here?
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 10th Sep 17, 2:04 PM
    • 33,240 Posts
    • 17,180 Thanks
    Quentin
    Yes. Make sure you cannot be identified from it
    • wrighteye1
    • By wrighteye1 10th Sep 17, 4:55 PM
    • 21 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    wrighteye1
    The evidence pack runs to 20 pages so I didn't want to post it all and overwhelm people. Hopefully I've just included the most pertinent parts.
    http://i67.tinypic.com/2yvrszr.jpg
    http://i66.tinypic.com/34t34lt.jpg
    http://i65.tinypic.com/a1pzed.jpg
    http://i65.tinypic.com/124hc37.jpg
    http://i65.tinypic.com/2akfcd1.jpg
    http://i68.tinypic.com/umrep.
    http://i65.tinypic.com/10emp1v.jpg

    The pack also includes an evidence checklist,an aerial photo of the car park showing where the parking notices are and which car park the car was parked in, photos of entry signs in to the car park, a copy of the PCN and copies of all the correspondence between myself and CPPLUS.

    Just taking the picture of the parking notice into account the notice says you must pay a penalty if you;

    Park in a non designated area - picture shows the car parked inside a standard parking bay.
    Park outside of the marked bays -picture shows the car parked inside a standard parking bay.
    Park in these areas as an on duty staff member - driver not a staff member.
    Park causing an obstruction - picture shows the car parked inside a standard parking bay.
    Parked in a blue badge bay - picture shows the car parked inside a standard parking bay.
    Use the car park for any other reason than shopping... - the driver went to shop in Meadowhall.
    Park your vehicle and leave the site by other means - no proof of this.

    So just on this basis surely the ticket is invalid?
    Last edited by wrighteye1; 10-09-2017 at 5:32 PM.
    • PKandF
    • By PKandF 10th Sep 17, 7:25 PM
    • 16 Posts
    • 15 Thanks
    PKandF
    I really do detest these con artists. I'm sure those more qualified than I will be along soon to offer their comments, but I'll give my two cents.

    1. That "scribble" from Meadowhall at the end of the contract does not give any idea of who that person is, their position, or their authority to sign on behalf of British Land/Meadowhall

    2. The signs do not describe any "restricted area".

    3. The photos do not give an accurate location as to where the car was parked within the centre, or an accurate proximity to the signs themselves.

    There's probably so much more but as I said, I'll leave that to those more experienced! Good luck!
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 10th Sep 17, 11:03 PM
    • 51,504 Posts
    • 65,102 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I'd say keep the comments as short bullet points (so they are read) and combine what you said below with what PKandF just said above:

    Park in a non designated area - picture shows the car parked inside a standard parking bay.
    Park outside of the marked bays -picture shows the car parked inside a standard parking bay.
    Park in these areas as an on duty staff member - driver not a staff member.
    Park causing an obstruction - picture shows the car parked inside a standard parking bay.
    Parked in a blue badge bay - picture shows the car parked inside a standard parking bay.
    Use the car park for any other reason than shopping... - the driver went to shop in Meadowhall.
    Park your vehicle and leave the site by other means - no proof of this.
    Can't see how POPLA can possibly find there is any evidence of a breach.

    And anyway they can't hold the keeper liable because it's CP Plus, who everyone giving advice on such matters, except Honest John of the Telegraph, knows - can't hold keepers liable!

    You might want to also add that the photo purporting to show a 'terms and conditions sign in relation to the vehicle' evidences no such thing, and the white blur (if it even is a sign) could be an advert for an end of Summer sales at the shops, or a sign for the stairs/lift, for all we know.

    And that the letter is just a letter created by CP Plus themselves, with no date of, or witnessing of, the scribbled 'signature' (unnamed person & position, as PKandF rightly says). That's not the contract purportedly dated in 2016 (no expiry date known, no terms and definitions and restrictions known) and ''Meadowhall'' are not the landowner, British Land is.

    And it says to the recipient, Meadowhall, at the end, that any court claims would be ''on your behalf'' which gives away that the contract cannot possibly be held to meet the BPA CoP, in that such contract MUST state that the parking operator is authorised to undertake claims in their OWN name, not as an agent ''on behalf of'' the landowner. An agent with that lowly status, can't sue.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 11-09-2017 at 12:26 AM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • wrighteye1
    • By wrighteye1 11th Sep 17, 5:45 PM
    • 21 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    wrighteye1
    Thanks again for all the advice, I have submitted my comments using what has been suggested above and will let you know of the outcome as soon as I receive it.
    • RobinofLoxley
    • By RobinofLoxley 11th Sep 17, 11:20 PM
    • 161 Posts
    • 267 Thanks
    RobinofLoxley
    Some of the stuff CP Plus are putting forward as evidence is laughable and amateurish.

    As Coupon-mad pointed out the photo showing the car and the supposed signs a long way from it, is a joke. Nice red boxes but where are the signs?


    As for the statements made by CP Plus here'

    "The PCN was affixed on the vehicle on the day of the parking event - photos enclosed"
    Can't see a PCN on the car in that photo.

    "I have enclosed the landowner sign contractor"
    Eh, what's that?

    "On the date of the incident the appellant had parked in a restricted area and had breached the terms and conditions of the site". They've copied this sentence twice!

    The appellant is the keeper, they falsely claim that the keeper had parked.
    There is no such term as "restricted area" in their T & C's and the photos offer no evidence that the car was in a restricted area.

    The grammar leaves a lot to be desired.

    [/B]
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 12th Sep 17, 11:07 AM
    • 823 Posts
    • 947 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    even better, the photos show the car parked in a normal car parking space with absolutely nothing to indicate the area was restrictured in anyway.
    • RobinofLoxley
    • By RobinofLoxley 12th Sep 17, 4:28 PM
    • 161 Posts
    • 267 Thanks
    RobinofLoxley
    Exactly, no markings around the bays to say it's a restricted area.

    Also is the photo date and time stamped, as required. I can't see anything.
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

3,891Posts Today

9,328Users online

Martin's Twitter