Dodgy parking signs

nigelbb

That is a fake POPLA code. It should be 10 digits. Here is the way that it should be formed:-

It is formulated in house based on the PPC's unique 3 digit code (first 3 digits), followed by numbers formulated from the date that the appeal was rejected (so POPLA can tell if you have appealed to them within the required time scale) i.e. the number of the day of the year (Jan 1st being 001 and 31st Dec being 365), followed by the year as a single digit (2013 being 3 and 2014 being 4) and finally a 3 digit number representing your position in the number of appeals they have rejected on that particular day (so if your appeal was the 5th rejection of the day then its 005).

rudolfsun

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yep.

But you 'just write' in POPLA 'loooong appeal stylee' as per these examples:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/61968045#Comment_61968045


HTH

Reading some of the appeals I notice that some people asked the PCC to demonstrate they had authorisation etc. As I didnt do this in my appeal has it weakened my case. Also in reference to the POPLA code, is it really fake? If so do I use that as evidence too?

rudolfsun

nigelbb wrote: »

That is a fake POPLA code. It should be 10 digits. Here is the way that it should be formed:-

Hi if its fake do I raise this to POPLA?

Coupon-mad

rudolfsun wrote: »

Reading some of the appeals I notice that some people asked the PCC to demonstrate they had authorisation etc. As I didnt do this in my appeal has it weakened my case. Also in reference to the POPLA code, is it really fake? If so do I use that as evidence too?

It doesn't matter what you said in your first appeal. You must now do a fuller appeal similar to those shown in the links. Your case is not weak as this is a PPC and their tickets are pants and that rejection letter verging on fraudulent (we have seen that fake POPLA ref used by this bunch of chancers before).

We help people to win 100% of POPLA appeals at the moment using that sort of wording. Do not miss any relevant paragraphs out, and include an extra one pointing out that their latest letter gives a fake 'POPLA ref' and is worded to fool the layman into possibly thinking this decision WAS the POPLA decision. Obviously you can't actually send anything to POPLA until you get the right code.

Complain also to the DVLA and the BPA about this sharp practice.

rudolfsun wrote: »

Hi if its fake do I raise this to POPLA?

You raise it in your POPLA appeal. You will have to write again to the address on the back of that letter and request the correct POPLA code (you should have to, but in reality you will have to). See the last sentence on the back of their misleading letter.

You will win this in the end so when you get the POPLA code (10 digits) come back and show us the nice long/strong appeal draft you've cobbled together, so we can help you to fine-tune it before you send it off.

rudolfsun

Thats awesome, thank you so much. Time for pen to paper!

rudolfsun

Ok first draft!!


**** Popla reference guff to go here ***

Dear sir or Madam,

I am writing to POPLA in order to appeal against a PCN I recently received from PCP Enforcement Agency (PCP). The time and date of issue was 12/05/2013 17:20.


I believe that I have been unfairly charged for the following reasons;

Written Authorisation
At no point have PCP informed me they have written authorisation to carry out the parking management for this area. I do not believe they have written consent and therefore feel I was in no way under kind of contract with PCP. Section 7.1 of the BPA code of practice clearly states the parking management firm must provide these details.

Misrepresentation of authority
PCP have clearly misguided the public on their signs, they have in bold white writing on a red background the Bristol council website. This suggests that PCP are providing parking enforcement under statutory authority, this is a direct breach of the BPA code of practice and is outlined section 14.1.

Further more PCP use the abbreviation PCN in their letters, but clearly refer to the charge as a Parking Charge Notice. This again is a direct breach of section 14.3 that stipulates the agency must refer to Penalty Charge Notice when using the abbreviation PCN.

Signs
There are no clear entrance signs to the area that signifies the area is managed by PCP. This is clearly outlined in section 18.2 of the BPA code.
The sign that was visible at the site has been attached; one can clearly see that it doesn’t clearly contain specific parking terms, only the charges for towing and clamping and cost of storage. Section 18.4 of the BPA states the signs should state the sum payable for unauthorised parking; bring any charges adequately to the drivers. I feel PCP have failed to do this with not having the charges at all. PCP contradict section 18.6 by using the word ‘Storage’ this is not clear if its for storing things at the harbour side or for parking.

As mentioned the only charges are for clamping and towing, Section 24.1 of the BPA code clearly states that the agency must have lawful authority to clamp and tow. PCPs signs do not stipulate this and they have not made this clear in their correspondence therefore I believe their threat of clamping and towing is an illegal one.

Not one sign in the area has a clear BPA or AOS logo, section 18.7 clearly states that the agency should display these details and PCP clearly don’t.
Reasonable Charges
PCP’s charges are at £100 with a 50% discount if paid early. On the weekend in question the entire harbour side was closed due to a festival. I do not believe the charges are fare as the permit holders wouldn’t of had access to the parking area and therefore the loss of earnings is punitive. I was loading and unloading equipment for the festival at the time, and no Grace period for doing so was stipulated. No warning of loading or unloading was present on any signs. Section 19.5 and 19.6 states there must be a genuine loss for the charges to stand, I believe there clearly was no loss and therefore see these charges as unreasonable

Photos
PCP have not sent me any photos showing the actual offence and time. I am not convinced I was blocking any parking spaces and until they provide me with those photos I shall stay convinced. PCP do not mention if they are using ANPR on their cameras, and if they are doing so the signs do not display this fact which is a direct altercation of section 21.1.
Reasonable amount of time
PCP have rejected my appeal and have then given me 14 days in which to payment. They do not stipulate if this is the discounted price but threaten that the collection procedure be reinstated. I believe this contradicts section 22.12 of the BPA which recommends 35 days.

The rejection letter also contains a fake POPLA reference of only 8 digits. This is misleading and could be taken as the POPLA reference leading to more charges if one thinks the POPLA appeal has failed.

Guys_Dad

rudolfsun wrote: »

Ok first draft!!


**** Popla reference guff to go here ***

Dear sir or Madam,

I am writing to POPLA in order to appeal against a PCN I recently received from PCP Enforcement Agency (PCP). The time and date of issue was 12/05/2013 17:20.


I believe that I have been unfairly charged for the following reasons;

Written Authorisation
At no point have PCP informed me they have written authorisation to carry out the parking management for this area. I do not believe they have written consent and therefore feel I was in no way under kind of contract with PCP. Section 7.1 of the BPA code of practice clearly states the parking management firm must provide these details.

Misrepresentation of authority
PCP have clearly misguided the public on their signs, they have in bold white writing on a red background the Bristol council website. This suggests that PCP are providing parking enforcement under statutory authority, this is a direct breach of the BPA code of practice and is outlined section 14.1.

Further more PCP use the abbreviation PCN in their letters, but clearly refer to the charge as a Parking Charge Notice. This again is a direct breach of section 14.3 that stipulates the agency must refer to Penalty Charge Notice when using the abbreviation PCN.

Signs
There are no clear entrance signs to the area that signifies the area is managed by PCP. This is clearly outlined in section 18.2 of the BPA code.
The sign that was visible at the site has been attached; one can clearly see that it doesn’t clearly contain specific parking terms, only the charges for towing and clamping and cost of storage. Section 18.4 of the BPA states the signs should state the sum payable for unauthorised parking; bring any charges adequately to the drivers. I feel PCP have failed to do this with not having the charges at all. PCP contradict section 18.6 by using the word ‘Storage’ this is not clear if its for storing things at the harbour side or for parking.

As mentioned the only charges are for clamping and towing, Section 24.1 of the BPA code clearly states that the agency must have lawful authority to clamp and tow. PCPs signs do not stipulate this and they have not made this clear in their correspondence therefore I believe their threat of clamping and towing is an illegal one.

Not one sign in the area has a clear BPA or AOS logo, section 18.7 clearly states that the agency should display these details and PCP clearly don’t.
Reasonable Charges
PCP’s charges are at £100 with a 50% discount if paid early. On the weekend in question the entire harbour side was closed due to a festival. I do not believe the charges are fare fair as the permit holders wouldn’t of have had access to the parking area and therefore the loss of earnings is punitive. I was loading and unloading equipment for the festival at the time, and no Grace period for doing so was stipulated. No warning of loading or unloading was present on any signs. Section 19.5 and 19.6 states there must be a genuine loss for the charges to stand, I believe there clearly was no loss and therefore see these charges as unreasonable. I require PCP to set out just how their pre-estimate of costs is arrived at, reminding them that costs incurred in running their business have already been deemed in court as not permissible

Photos
PCP have not sent me any photos showing the actual offence and time. I am not convinced I was blocking any parking spaces and until they provide me with those photos I shall stay convinced. PCP do not mention if they are using ANPR on their cameras, and if they are doing so the signs do not display this fact which is a direct altercation of section 21.1.
Reasonable amount of time
PCP have rejected my appeal and have then given me 14 days in which to payment. They do not stipulate if this is the discounted price but threaten that the collection procedure be reinstated. I believe this contradicts section 22.12 of the BPA which recommends 35 days.

The rejection letter also contains a fake POPLA reference of only 8 digits. This is misleading and could be taken as the POPLA reference leading to more charges if one thinks the POPLA appeal has failed.

Not sure how you can submit a POPLA appeal without a whole code, but try it anyway, but it might be kicked back. I would actually make this point at the beginning of the appeal in bold in case, with their workload, POPLA don't even get to the point at the end of your appeal.

rudolfsun

Coupon-mad wrote: »

It doesn't matter what you said in your first appeal. You must now do a fuller appeal similar to those shown in the links. Your case is not weak as this is a PPC and their tickets are pants and that rejection letter verging on fraudulent (we have seen that fake POPLA ref used by this bunch of chancers before).

We help people to win 100% of POPLA appeals at the moment using that sort of wording. Do not miss any relevant paragraphs out, and include an extra one pointing out that their latest letter gives a fake 'POPLA ref' and is worded to fool the layman into possibly thinking this decision WAS the POPLA decision. Obviously you can't actually send anything to POPLA until you get the right code.

Complain also to the DVLA and the BPA about this sharp practice.




You raise it in your POPLA appeal. You will have to write again to the address on the back of that letter and request the correct POPLA code (you should have to, but in reality you will have to). See the last sentence on the back of their misleading letter.

You will win this in the end so when you get the POPLA code (10 digits) come back and show us the nice long/strong appeal draft you've cobbled together, so we can help you to fine-tune it before you send it off.

first draft ready!

rudolfsun

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Not sure how you can submit a POPLA appeal without a whole code, but try it anyway, but it might be kicked back. I would actually make this point at the beginning of the appeal in bold in case, with their workload, POPLA don't even get to the point at the end of your appeal.

Thanks for the advice, Ive asked for a POPLA pack too - going to sting them !

Coupon-mad

Update us when you get a real 10 digit POPLA code and we can help you fine-tune that draft.