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
    • sonn1
    • By sonn1 4th Sep 17, 9:22 AM
    • 8Posts
    • 2Thanks
    sonn1
    F1rst Parking POPLA Rebuttal
    • #1
    • 4th Sep 17, 9:22 AM
    F1rst Parking POPLA Rebuttal 4th Sep 17 at 9:22 AM
    Hi All
    I received PCN at a university, I had appealed to the PPC and POPLA following the newbies thread and other posts on the forum.

    However, I have now received the evidence pack from F1rst Parking that I need to rebut this. This was a windscreen ticket.

    I have had a go at the rebuttal using another posters circumstance. Please can someone have a look at this to see if I can add or edit anything.

    Dear POPLA Assessor,
    PCN Code: xxxxxxx
    POPLA Code: xxxxxxx

    I shall respond to the evidence pack provided by First!Parking.

    The standard image of the signage shown in the picture provided by First!Parking!fails to highlight how close the nearest sign was to the parked car during the contravention. Moreover, the picture of the signs fails to shows its position on the post to which it is attached. The position of the sign coupled with the small size of the font, large amounts of text coupled with poor contrasting make it almost impossible to read. First!Parking!try to cover poor signage by providing an additional enlarged image of the sign but this is not how it appears to a person on foot.

    As the sign is positioned high up on a pole with small cluttered font with poor contrasting it is very difficult to read. If you can't read the cost of the charge and the terms and conditions of!parking!how can users of the car park enter into a contract with First!Parking.

    First!Parking!provide an additional image of a sign positioned at the entrance of the Car park, however, to view this sign, a driver using this entrance would have to turn their head 90 degrees; forcing the driver to take their eyes of the road ahead. This is a contravention of the following guideline: “The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead.”, it is not possible to drive and look at a sign, without needing to look away from the road ahead.

    Furthermore, i would like to draw your attention to Section 18, paragraph 10 (S18P10), of the BPA: CoP: “So that disabled motorists can decide whether they want to use the site, there should be at least one sign containing the terms and conditions for!parking!that can be viewed without needing to leave the vehicle. Ideally this sign should be close to any!parking!bays set aside for disabled motorists”.

    However, as seen by the image taken on xxx there are no signage immediately displayed to the users of the disabled bays as per BPA:CoP guidelines. The nearest signage is mounted on poles which face out in the road, there is no signage that clearly, easily, and safely readable from the nearby pavement; so i can only assume that First!Parking!expects a disabled user to stand in the middle of a busy road to view their signage. This is unacceptable and unrealistic.

    This again highlights the flagrant violation of the BPA:CoP while First!Parking!claim to follow it, this shows that First!Parking!lacks integrity and cannot be trusted.

    In light of this, and in addition to these points, i will reiterate my point that there was no valid contract formed between First!Parking!and the driver

    D) Registered Keeper Details and Liability Trail
    First!Parking!does not know who the driver is, and nor is there any obligation placed upon myself (the registered keeper) to name the driver under POFA 2012 like First!Parking!are claiming. They have either misinterpreted this piece of law or have a complete lack of understanding of what is required, hence why they have failed to correctly comply with it.

    Therefore I, as registered keeper, cannot be held liable to this charge.

    E) The contract between First!Parking!and xxx University The contract provided by First!Parking!is heavily redacted that it is impossible to make out the terms, the exemptions, times of operation, tariffs, whether PE or 'Elite!Parking' are the party who have authority from the (separate) landowner to enforce contracts in the courts if necessary. This redacted section includes Section 8 and the name of the signatories. Furthermore, whole Sections such Section 9, Section 10, Section 11, Section 13, Section 14, Section 15, Section 16, Section 17, Section 18, Section 19, Section 20 have totally been omitted from the copy of the contract provided by First!Parking. This raises the question as to why they were omitted.!

    The names of the signatories on the contract have been redacted and the name “for and on behalf” appear in a different font and color raising questions about the validly of the signage.

    This fails to comply with 7.3 of the BPA CoP, as required to be evidenced in the appeal already made.
Page 1
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 4th Sep 17, 11:17 AM
    • 15,432 Posts
    • 24,135 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #2
    • 4th Sep 17, 11:17 AM
    • #2
    • 4th Sep 17, 11:17 AM
    E) The contract between First!Parking!and xxx University The contract provided by First!Parking!is heavily redacted that it is impossible to make out the terms, the exemptions, times of operation, tariffs, whether PE or 'Elite!Parking' are the party who have authority from the (separate) landowner to enforce contracts in the courts if necessary. This redacted section includes Section 8 and the name of the signatories. Furthermore, whole Sections such Section 9, Section 10, Section 11, Section 13, Section 14, Section 15, Section 16, Section 17, Section 18, Section 19, Section 20 have totally been omitted from the copy of the contract provided by First!Parking. This raises the question as to why they were omitted.!
    The first thing you need to do is to thoroughly proof read what you have drafted. In this one paragraph (above) you seem to be dealing with 3 separate private parking companies.

    Without seeing your POPLA appeal or First Parking's response to it, we are working in a total vacuum. So I doubt anyone will be able to give you rapier-like arguments to proffer.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    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.
    • sonn1
    • By sonn1 4th Sep 17, 10:51 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    sonn1
    • #3
    • 4th Sep 17, 10:51 PM
    • #3
    • 4th Sep 17, 10:51 PM
    Thank you for your reply. I have attached the evidence pack in the form of jpg pictures. I note that in their reply they state that I have admitted to be the driver due to stating that there was not appropriate signage however this is an assumption and at no point was this admitted. Also in the pictures within the evidence pack they are very unclear which shows that they are insufficient.

    I could not add the link to the pictures because I am a newbie, how can I add these?

    Thank you in advance,

    Sonn
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 4th Sep 17, 11:05 PM
    • 15,432 Posts
    • 24,135 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #4
    • 4th Sep 17, 11:05 PM
    • #4
    • 4th Sep 17, 11:05 PM
    I could not add the link to the pictures because I am a newbie, how can I add these?
    Host them on Dropbox or Imurg (don't use Photobucket as some of us can no longer access it). Copy the URL into this thread's reply box and change http to read hxxp. A regular will convert to a live link.

    As a newbie you can't post live links until you have a bit of time on the forum and around a couple of dozen posts under your belt.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    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.
    • sonn1
    • By sonn1 5th Sep 17, 9:09 AM
    • 8 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    sonn1
    • #5
    • 5th Sep 17, 9:09 AM
    • #5
    • 5th Sep 17, 9:09 AM
    Thank you for your swift reply, Please check the following link for pictures of he evidence pack. I got a reply from them in the 30th so I believe today is the 7th day to reply back to them.

    hxxps://dropbox.com/sh/pbrlrh8qamb57vd/AADQelPp1iRoiS7BLjsCB7rGa?dl=0
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 5th Sep 17, 9:44 AM
    • 15,432 Posts
    • 24,135 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #6
    • 5th Sep 17, 9:44 AM
    • #6
    • 5th Sep 17, 9:44 AM
    https://dropbox.com/sh/pbrlrh8qamb57vd/AADQelPp1iRoiS7BLjsCB7rGa?dl=0
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    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.
    • sonn1
    • By sonn1 5th Sep 17, 2:02 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    sonn1
    • #7
    • 5th Sep 17, 2:02 PM
    • #7
    • 5th Sep 17, 2:02 PM
    I have spoken to Popla who have said that I have until midnight tomorrow (6th Sept) to reply, any help In regards to this would be much appreciated.

    Thank you
    • sonn1
    • By sonn1 5th Sep 17, 6:19 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    sonn1
    • #8
    • 5th Sep 17, 6:19 PM
    • #8
    • 5th Sep 17, 6:19 PM
    Sorry guys just a bit anxious as I only have till tomorrow to get the rebuttal in, please can someone shed some light on this
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 5th Sep 17, 6:23 PM
    • 51,473 Posts
    • 65,061 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #9
    • 5th Sep 17, 6:23 PM
    • #9
    • 5th Sep 17, 6:23 PM
    As per Umkomaas' advice:
    The first thing you need to do is to thoroughly proof read what you have drafted. In this one paragraph (above) you seem to be dealing with 3 separate private parking companies.
    No sure we've seen your latest draft with the necessary amendments yet.

    It's only comments - the shorter bullet points the better.
    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.

    • sonn1
    • By sonn1 5th Sep 17, 6:26 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    sonn1
    Also the contract they have sent is from 2014 and was signed on behalf of demontfort university
    • sonn1
    • By sonn1 5th Sep 17, 6:45 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    sonn1
    Hi Coupon-mad

    I have now amended the draft as shown below, umkomaas also converted the link for the evidence pack that was uploaded, please can you take a look at this and let me know if I need to add anything or edit. I am not too sure what to write in regards to the contract however i have noticed it is signed 'for and behalf of' and there is also no name which I have included in the draft below.

    Dear POPLA Assessor,
    PCN Code: xxxxxxx
    POPLA Code: xxxxxxx

    I shall respond to the evidence pack provided by First Parking.

    The standard image of the signage shown in the picture provided by First Parking fails to highlight how close the nearest sign was to the parked car during the contravention. Moreover, the picture of the signs fails to shows its position on the post to which it is attached. The position of the sign coupled with the small size of the font, large amounts of text coupled with poor contrasting make it almost impossible to read. First Parking try to cover poor signage by providing an additional enlarged image of the sign but this is not how it appears to a person on foot. This is further evidenced by the pictures provided by First Parking of the actual sign in question and it being unreadable in the picture.

    As the sign is positioned high up on a pole with small cluttered font with poor contrasting it is very difficult to read. If you can't read the cost of the charge and the terms and conditions of parking how can users of the car park enter into a contract with First Parking. The sign is also covered by overgrown trees making it unreadable.

    First Parking provide an additional image of a sign positioned at the entrance of the Car park, however, to view this sign, a driver using this entrance would have to turn their head 90 degrees; forcing the driver to take their eyes of the road ahead. This is a contravention of the following guideline: “The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead.”, it is not possible to drive and look at a sign, without needing to look away from the road ahead.

    Furthermore, i would like to draw your attention to Section 18, paragraph 10 (S18P10), of the BPA: CoP: “So that disabled motorists can decide whether they want to use the site, there should be at least one sign containing the terms and conditions for!parking!that can be viewed without needing to leave the vehicle. Ideally this sign should be close to any parking bays set aside for disabled motorists”.

    However, as seen by the image there is no signage immediately displayed to the users of the disabled bays as per BPA:CoP guidelines. The nearest signage is mounted on poles which face out in the road, there is no signage that clearly, easily, and safely readable from the nearby pavement; so i can only assume that First Parking expects a disabled user to stand in the middle of a busy road to view their signage. This is unacceptable and unrealistic.

    This again highlights the flagrant violation of the BPA CoP while First Parking claim to follow it, this shows that First Parking lacks integrity and cannot be trusted.

    In light of this, and in addition to these points, i will reiterate my point that there was no valid contract formed between First!Parking!and the driver

    D) Registered Keeper Details and Liability Trail
    First Parking does not know who the driver is, and nor is there any obligation placed upon myself (the registered keeper) to name the driver under POFA 2012 like First Parking are claiming. They have either misinterpreted this piece of law or have a complete lack of understanding of what is required, hence why they have failed to correctly comply with it.

    Therefore I, as registered keeper, cannot be held liable to this charge. They state that I have said the registered keeper was the driver however this is merely an assumption due to visiting the site and seeing the signage.

    E) The contract between First Parking and DeMontfort University is from 2014 and is only signed on behalf of the university and on different dates.

    The names of the signatories on the contract have been redacted and the name “for and on behalf” appear in a different font and color raising questions about the validly of the signage.

    This fails to comply with 7.3 of the BPA CoP, as required to be evidenced in the appeal already made.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 5th Sep 17, 7:24 PM
    • 51,473 Posts
    • 65,061 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Good. But does the final word here make sense...not to me?!
    The names of the signatories on the contract have been redacted and the name “for and on behalf” appear in a different font and color raising questions about the validly of the signage.
    Is there any expiry date on the 'contract'?

    If not, say so to POPLA, remarking that a 3 year old letter signed by unknown people, with no expiry date, is not evidence of authority for a PCN in 2017.
    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.

    • sonn1
    • By sonn1 5th Sep 17, 11:11 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    sonn1
    There doesn't seem to be an expiry date on the contract, but you're right I will question the authority of the pcn
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 6th Sep 17, 8:02 PM
    • 51,473 Posts
    • 65,061 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    POPLA have decided cases lots of times against a PPC, where the contract omits the expiry date! Definitely point it out.
    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.

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

263Posts Today

1,154Users online

Martin's Twitter