NCL airport

The_Slithy_Tove

It seems the BPA don't think POPLA applies to airport approach roads (presumably as they are covered by Byelaws, and thus out of scope for POFA).

Copied from Pepipoo thread:

The BPA are pressing for POPLA to be adopted ... at places such as railway stations and airports, where it is currently not available to motorists.

POPLA clearly think differently as they do hear such appeals and even made comment about No Stopping charges (see above in this thread).

Coupon-mad

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

I know there have been a lot of posts since but I gave you a link to examples of soft appeal wording in post #2. That's the sort of challenge to do, nothing written in the first person except to say 'I am the registered keeper' like in the examples.

Of course you include more in a POPLA appeal! You need to read more threads if you hadn't yet seen that a strong POPLA appeal is maybe thirty times longer than a short challenge to the scammer. The latter is designed to elicit a POPLA code and the former is designed to win.

Parking-Prankster

I would argue that POPLA are allowed to hear your case, because they are an appeal body set up to hear appeals about tickets issued by private parking companies, of which this is one.

Equally, this is not a parking issue, but a stopping/dropping off passenger issue. Therefore POFA 2012 does not apply, which means RK liability does not apply.

Your appeal to POPLA should therefore include:

1) This was not a parking incident as defined by the POFA 2012 which states:

1(1)This Schedule applies where—
(a)the driver of a vehicle is required by virtue of a relevant obligation to pay parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on relevant land; and ...

2) Therefore, keeper liability does not apply
3) The operator may only pursue the driver
4) The operator has offered no proof as to the identity of the driver
5) I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld

You can add all the other standard POPLA stuff in too :-)

Guys_Dad

And quote the relevant bit from the lead adjudicator's report that is helpful too!

bazster

Parking-Prankster wrote: »

I would argue that POPLA are allowed to hear your case, because they are an appeal body set up to hear appeals about tickets issued by private parking companies, of which this is one.

Equally, this is not a parking issue, but a stopping/dropping off passenger issue. Therefore POFA 2012 does not apply, which means RK liability does not apply.

Your appeal to POPLA should therefore include:

1) This was not a parking incident as defined by the POFA 2012 which states:



2) Therefore, keeper liability does not apply
3) The operator may only pursue the driver
4) The operator has offered no proof as to the identity of the driver
5) I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld

You can add all the other standard POPLA stuff in too :-)

Perzackly. Nail-hit-head.

Fatlad

Put soft appeal in today, reponding as owner not driver

Fatlad

Ok, I got the response from the company, with a POPLA verification code.

Where do i go from here?

it also says this "POPLA will not accept supporting evidence relating to your case if it was not initially submitted in your original appeal to us. "

and all i said in the original was that i did not accept responsibility because they incurred no loss.


Also the website they give for appeal does not work. They missed off the .htm.

Guys_Dad

Fatlad wrote: »

Ok, I got the response from the company, with a POPLA verification code.

Where do i go from here?

it also says this "POPLA will not accept supporting evidence relating to your case if it was not initially submitted in your original appeal to us. "

and all i said in the original was that i did not accept responsibility because they incurred no loss.

Looks like a jammin session or modern jazz where they make it up as they go along. Total rubbish. Look at Parking Prankster's initial appeals and then how he subsequently won.

That appeal point you made will be one of the ones you send to POPLA.

You now go to the POPLA DECISIONS sticky at the top of the forum and read the points that have won at POPLA. Incorporate the relevant ones into your appeal. I would start with the latest one and knock up a draft appeal that others will comment on for you.

bazster

Fatlad wrote: »

Ok, I got the response from the company, with a POPLA verification code.

Where do i go from here?

it also says this "POPLA will not accept supporting evidence relating to your case if it was not initially submitted in your original appeal to us. "

and all i said in the original was that i did not accept responsibility because they incurred no loss.

No time right now to suggest appeal points for you, but I must just point out that the statement in bold is a big, fat hairy LIE and should be the subject of the strongest possible complaint to DVLA and BPA. It's so fraudulent it must surely break some law or other also???

Back later.

bod1467

I would contend it should also be one of your appeal points ... the PPC making untruthful statements.