Parking eye 'witness statement'

spacey2012

There is a criminal offence of fraud by false representation in this country.
Filing a false statement to obtain monies would fit the offence to a tee and POPLA would be complicit in conspiracy to commit fraud by false representation.
Are they so desperate to be good little servants to the PPC that they are prepared to break our laws ?

nodiscount

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Unfortunately, although what you say is correct in the real world, not in the POPLA LA LA Land.

This is the POPLA approved Witness statement B below. Is this the one they used??

WITNESS STATEMENT


On behalf of [managing agent] I can confirm that:

1. The site is [name of site].
2. The Landowner is [landowner], who is the owner of the site.
3. [managing agent] is the duly authorised managing agent, acting on behalf of [landowner] in this regard.
4. The Operator is [operator]
5. The Operator has the authority of the Landowner to undertake parking management, control and enforcement at the site.
6. This authority is contained in an agreement dated [date] running from [date] to [date].
7. The Operator is authorised by the Landowner to issue parking charge notices where vehicles are parked on the site in a manner not permitted under the terms and conditions of parking.
8. The terms and conditions are as clearly set out on signage at the site and, where applicable, with any permit or dispensation for use at the site.
9. The issuing of parking charge notices is subject to the agreed criteria and exemptions, as also as clearly set out on signage at the site and, where applicable, with any permit or dispensation for use at the site.
10. The Operator is authorised to issue a parking charge notice for breach of any of the terms and conditions referred to above.
11. The Operator is authorised by the Landowner to pursue the outstanding parking charges in accordance with the British Parking Association Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice.

I confirm that I am authorised to make this statement on behalf of the Landowner and that the above information is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.



……………………………………………………………..
Signature

Name………………………………………………………………

Position……………………………………………………………

For and on behalf of [managing agent]

Date………………………………………………………………..

NOTE

Name of site should be sufficiently described to clearly identify it
e.g. ‘X Shopping Centre, Y town’ or
‘Z Estate, comprising A Road, B Road, C Road and D Road’.

Operator name should be clear, e.g. ‘XYZ Parking’ or ‘ABC Solutions Ltd trading as 123 Parking’.

Yes. That is it.

It does look dodgy. Why go to all the trouble of getting some lackey to sign all these 'witness statements' when all they should have done is give a copy of the so called written authority they have?

So how long do I have to submit further evidence to popla?

nodiscount

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Their recent teach in by the BPA/POPLA had 2 templates. 1 from the landowner and 1 from an agent.

I would write in saying that you require strict proof from the landowner on the landowner's headed paper that the person signing was authorised by the landowner and that the person signing had full access and understanding of the contract and that the contract did give the PPC full authority to pursue motorists as far as court.

Additionally say that there is evidence that the PPC has previously signed the contract themselves where it should have been the landowner.

Lastly, ring the agents and ask to speak to the signee. Find out their position, whether they did sign the contract and have they access to the contract.

This would not stand up in court.

That's a good idea.

nigelbb

These so called 'witness statements' are nothing of the sort. They are merely a form that has been filled in & signed by an office junior. They fail as witness statements on so many points that it beggars belief that the BPA Ltd & their cronies in POPLA should think that they are an acceptable substitute for sight of the relevant parts of the contract between the PPC & the landowner.

These are not valid witness statements admissible in a court of law for the following reasons (this is not an exhaustive list)
1) Not in the witness's own words
2) Not in the first person
3) Doesn't have the full name & address of the witness or as the statement is made in a professional capacity the address at which the witness works
4) Doesn't state whether the witness is party to the proceedings or is an employee of such a party
5) Doesn't indicate which of the statements in it are made from the witness's own knowledge and which are matters of information and belief indicating the source for any matters of information and belief
6) Doesn't include a statement by the witness that she believes that the facts stated in it are true
etc etc

momindoll

I work in the legal profession. I am a long time follower of this forum. The next time someone comes to court with a no insurance case, they can just just send in a statement from a mate saying they have seen an insurance policy. That will be OK - not! This statement is not admissible under the Hearsay rules. It relates to a document in existence and not records held by the company. If it exists and is being referred to, it must be exhibited. In any event the party relying on it should exhibit it. The PPO is party to the contract supposedly. POPLA should be reported and removed. An impartial adjudicator coaching the PPOs. I would be reported for misconduct if I did that.

Coupon-mad

nodiscount wrote: »

Yes. That is it.

It does look dodgy. Why go to all the trouble of getting some lackey to sign all these 'witness statements' when all they should have done is give a copy of the so called written authority they have?

So how long do I have to submit further evidence to popla?

Do it as soon as possible. Point out the flaws.

Custard_Pie

So, the basis of a PoPLA appeal should include the statement :

"I require that POPLA to please check whether (PPC) have provided a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed & dated contract with the landowner/occupier (not just a signed slip of paper saying it exists or someone has witnessed it) and check that it specifically enables this Operator to pursue parking charges in their own name and through the court system. I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice."

Custard_Pie

momindoll wrote: »

I work in the legal profession. I am a long time follower of this forum. The next time someone comes to court with a no insurance case, they can just just send in a statement from a mate saying they have seen an insurance policy. That will be OK - not! This statement is not admissible under the Hearsay rules. It relates to a document in existence and not records held by the company. If it exists and is being referred to, it must be exhibited. In any event the party relying on it should exhibit it. The PPO is party to the contract supposedly. POPLA should be reported and removed. An impartial adjudicator coaching the PPOs. I would be reported for misconduct if I did that.

They haven't yet denied an appeal though based on there secret love-in?

It would be great though if they did as PoPLA are ill-advising The PPC's who would take the fall in Court.

I would also like to see them try this with my appeal as I clearly stated that I wanted them to see the original signed contract that includes all the chase clauses in it and not a signed letter.

nigelbb

Custard_Pie wrote: »

So, the basis of a PoPLA appeal should include the statement :

"I require that POPLA to please check whether (PPC) have provided a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed & dated contract with the landowner/occupier (not just a signed slip of paper saying it exists or someone has witnessed it) and check that it specifically enables this Operator to pursue parking charges in their own name and through the court system. I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice."

All evidence that the PPC presents to POPLA is also sent to the appellant so that they have the opportunity to challenge or rebut it. If the PPC does not produce "a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed & dated contract with the landowner/occupier" then the appellant will know it & should contact POPLA at that stage pointing out this fact not just telling POPLA how to do their job when submitting their appeal.