NCL airport

bazster

Guys_Dad wrote: »

You have reasoned arguments and I agree that you are technically correct.

But I wonder if the one would shoot oneself in the foot if one states that one was not parked, but only stopped.

Apart from all the generic appeal clauses, the POPLA "official" appeal would presumably be under the fist case

* The vehicle was not improperly parked.

Is there any danger, therefore, that the adjudicator could say "The car was not parked and as POPLA deals with parked cars, I can not hear this case" and refer it back.

It seems clear from your earlier quote from the lead adjudicator that POPLA will hear these cases, even if perhaps they shouldn't. In any case, I'm sure they hear cases along the lines of "my vehicle wasn't there at the time", which I think is pretty similar in principle to "my vehicle was there but it wasn't parked".

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Or even worse, the PPC decides that it is not a parking issue as such but a traffic management one and therefore POPLA is not relevant in this case, refuses to issue a POPLA code, making court the next step?

Why would the PPC do that? I have clearly recommended making no representations to the PPC other than simply rejecting their claim (without giving reasons). Accordingly they will have no idea which way this is heading until it actually lands at POPLA.

Coupon-mad

nigelbb wrote: »

It's not parking so is outside POFA & thus no attempt can be made to pursue the registered keeper for unpaid parking charges.

It would be interesting to know what reasonable cause they presented to the DVLA for obtaining the driver details when there was no parking crime involved.

I don't agree, the Annual Report from POPLA talks about 'no stopping zones' I think. Stopping is parking, similar to Council tickets in that respect.

I really think the OP should press ahead with POPLA as it would be silly for them to miss that chance to get it cancelled.

bazster

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I don't agree, the Annual Report from POPLA talks about 'no stopping zones' I think. Stopping is parking, similar to Council tickets in that respect.

I really think the OP should press ahead with POPLA as it would be silly for them to miss that chance to get it cancelled.

Whatever the annual report from POPLA says doesn't affect the law, and the law (POFA) is clear: it is concerned with parking, and only parking.

And I'm sorry but you are wrong, stopping is not parking and a Council cannot issue a ticket to someone who merely stops to pick up or set down passengers, unless it's on a red (no stopping) route. Check this out on Direct Gov:

http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/@motor/documents/digitalasset/dg_191927.pdf

Waiting restrictions are indicated by
both signs and road markings. The
restrictions usually apply to the
whole of the highway, including
verges and footways. Drivers may
stop to pick up or set down
passengers and, where not
prohibited, to load and unload.

I agree, though, that the OP should press on to POPLA and hit them with everything, including that he was never actually parked and that, as the keeper, he cannot be held liable.

Guys_Dad

bazster wrote: »

Why would the PPC do that? I have clearly recommended making no representations to the PPC other than simply rejecting their claim (without giving reasons). Accordingly they will have no idea which way this is heading until it actually lands at POPLA.

We have a current thread where a PPC won't issue a POPLA code from a stroma soft appeal letter without the motorist giving a reason. Rubbish, of course, but it indicates that maybe the PPCs are not in favour of POPLA and its costs and results.

In fact, I bet they wish it wasn't there at all.

So, if they can avoid POPLA by saying that stopping on yellow lines at airports are not a parking issue, but a traffic management one, they can refuse to issue a POPLA code, no matter what the motorist writes initially. Add to that the opinion of the Lead Adjudicator that hints at they need to be pretty accurate with their cases on this point, and it doesn't look attractive for PPCs at POPLA

That gives them a direct route to court where they can argue the terrorist worry, traffic management etc and, of course, can say that POFA doesn't apply. They could also contend that this is even outside the remit of the British Parking Association.

Whether or not the DVLA, BPA, POPLA et al would agree, I don't know and I suspect this will only be cleared up with a test case.

Not seeking to disagree with anyone or, indeed say that this is my belief in what would happen, only opening the possibilities for consideration. :beer:

bazster

Guys_Dad wrote: »

We have a current thread where a PPC won't issue a POPLA code from a stroma soft appeal letter without the motorist giving a reason. Rubbish, of course, but it indicates that maybe the PPCs are not in favour of POPLA and its costs and results.

Good. They refuse to issue a code and their case collapses when the time limit expires, and if it eventually winds up in court the judge laughs them out for completely failing to follow their own COP and suggests they bring a toothbrush next time.

Guys_Dad wrote: »

So, if they can avoid POPLA by saying that stopping on yellow lines at airports are not a parking issue, but a traffic management one, they can refuse to issue a POPLA code, no matter what the motorist writes initially. Add to that the opinion of the Lead Adjudicator that hints at they need to be pretty accurate with their cases on this point, and it doesn't look attractive for PPCs at POPLA

That gives them a direct route to court where they can argue the terrorist worry, traffic management etc and, of course, can say that POFA doesn't apply. They could also contend that this is even outside the remit of the British Parking Association.

Whether or not the DVLA, BPA, POPLA et al would agree, I don't know and I suspect this will only be cleared up with a test case.

Not seeking to disagree with anyone or, indeed say that this is my belief in what would happen, only opening the possibilities for consideration. :beer:

Oh come on, they're not that smart! As far as they're concerned they've issued a Parking Charge Notice, and I'm sure the distinction between what is or is not parking is completely lost on them. Anyway, it's all very well you inventing these doom-and-gloom scenarios, but there's actually nothing anyone can do about it.

Guys_Dad

bazster wrote: »

Oh come on, they're not that smart! As far as they're concerned they've issued a Parking Charge Notice, and I'm sure the distinction between what is or is not parking is completely lost on them. You do know they read this forum and I am sure they will have read your argument with some interest, as well as what others have written Anyway, it's all very well you inventing these doom-and-gloom scenarios, but there's actually nothing anyone can do about it.

There is a difference between doom-and-gloom scenarios and considering all the ramifications and possibilities.

Coupon-mad

bazster wrote: »

Good. They refuse to issue a code and their case collapses when the time limit expires, and if it eventually winds up in court the judge laughs them out for completely failing to follow their own COP and suggests they bring a toothbrush next time.

We know that, you know that, but your average new poster doesn't want to be dragged to Court. And with POPLA they don't have to. Seeing as we currently help people get their fake PCNS cancelled 100% of the time using the usual wording then this case is no different in that respect (it will be cancelled by POPLA if the OP words the appeal right). The OP deserves to get it cancelled and should not have to worry about Court.

Fatlad

This is all very useful stuff and will be handy for the POPLA appeal. However, for now, what should the soft appeal,say?the rejection of their authority seems an agresssive opening move. If i were just to say i had not read see signs because they were not clear to me, would there be anything wrong in that? Am i allowed to include things in the POPLA appeal which I do not mention in the initial letter?


Cheers

Umkomaas

Fatlad wrote: »

This is all very useful stuff and will be handy for the POPLA appeal. However, for now, what should the soft appeal,say?the rejection of their authority seems an agresssive opening move. If i were just to say i had not read see signs because they were not clear to me, would there be anything wrong in that? Am i allowed to include things in the POPLA appeal which I do not mention in the initial letter?


Cheers

Do you think being nice and pleasant, snuggling up to them will make a jot of difference, then you've not read enough yet

Anyway, here's one (adapted) you might be more comfortable with - courtesy of Stroma (and remarkably pleasant compared to some of his 'crackers')

Name
Address

Date


Dear xxx

With reference to the invoice xxxx dated xxxxx , the keeper denies all liability for this charge as there is no loss to you or the landowner

The keeper requires that you immediately cancel this invoice. If you reject this challenge, please forward a POPLA verification code to appeal to them independently.


Faithfully

The keeper

No matter what you send, it's a guaranteed rejection. Your only aim here is to hook a POPLA code, so don't waste any energy or effort for the initial challenge. Keep your powder dry for a howitzer to POPLA (ultra important - with help from the forum, don't go it alone on POPLA) - there is no requirement for you to reveal any of your hand to the PPC other than in your POPLA submission.

HTH

bazster

Absolutely do NOT (repeat NOT) say "I couldn't read the signs" or ANYTHING that would admit you were the driver. They don't know who was driving, keep it that way.

A totally anodyne letter such as suggested by Umkomaas, which tells them nothing about you, the car, the driver or the circumstances, is all you need for now.

Remember, whatever you say, they will reject it anyway, and the more you say, the more they have to use against you.

Later you can put whatever you like in your POPLA appeal regardless of whether you mentioned it in your first appeal - although, obviously, it would be unwise to contradict yourself, which you can easily avoid by putting virtually nothing in your first appeal.