help with POPLA appeal

markstokeshughes80

cheers going get it sent now and will be back on to let you know how i got on when get the desicion.

markstokeshughes80

Coupon-mad wrote: »

We are on pepipoo anyway, most of us, so you'd get nothing much different! I am SchoolRunMum over there and the Equality Act is my 'speciality' if you like, due to a previous job as a Disability Advice Manager. Your appeal has missed nothing out that normally wins - and we win 100% of the time at the moment - so make sure you submit the amended version (not saying you went to McDonalds...!).

If you are submitting this online then be aware that POPLA's appeal box has a restricted word-count which will cause an error if you tried to copy that entire appeal into the box!

So instead, make sure the word document you have this on, now has a header with the POPLA code on it so that every page shows the code. Then save it once amended, as a PDF and then attach the PDF link in the box with a one-liner: 'Dear POPLA, here is my appeal by PDF. Please let me know by return if this PDF is unreadable. My appeal is a complete letter from salutation to signature so if you can't open it or read it all please tell me immediately'.

Or just post it stapled to a hard copy POPLA form with the 10 digit code at the top of every page.

thanks i have saved my word doc into pdf but how do i attach the pdf link in the box?

Coupon-mad

I would say copy the URL of the PDF and paste it in the box if it allows links within it. If not then put a few lines in the box explaining that your linked documents include your appeal in PDF format (I think it allows linked documents, surely, because POPLA allows you to send photos?).

Or email it with the PDF appeal as an email attachment.

Or post it with a hard copy POPLA form stapled to the front, with the 10 digit code on every page.

Guys_Dad

Do the last choice and get a certificate of posting (free) as well.

markstokeshughes80

I tryed to use there online form to sumbit my photo evidence but the files were to big to attach so i emailed all my photo evidence and the appeal in pdf format to them last night as wanted to get it sent.
i had to send few emails though as had several photos and my appeal to send and would only let me attached 2 photos in each email.
Sent 5 emails in all, I put my popla ref in body and subject title in all emails
do you think that will be ok or should I post it to?thanks

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Your wasting your time with photos.

They are not needed.

Coupon-mad

markstokeshughes80 wrote: »

I tryed to use there online form to sumbit my photo evidence but the files were to big to attach so i emailed all my photo evidence and the appeal in pdf format to them last night as wanted to get it sent.
i had to send few emails though as had several photos and my appeal to send and would only let me attached 2 photos in each email.
Sent 5 emails in all, I put my popla ref in body and subject title in all emails
do you think that will be ok or should I post it to?thanks

If it were me I would post it all too (again with the 10 digit code written on the top of every page). Put a covering note saying this is for an appeal already sent by email but you are not sure if all attachments were received.

markstokeshughes80

Hi again I have received all information of parking eye that they have sent popla regarding my appeal it is mainly photos and lengthily garbage in my opinion the main focus is on pre-estimate of loss and commercial justification I apologise for the length just wanted try give you as much info as possible it states.

That the appellant has Made submissions either stating or indicating that he does not believe that the parking charge amount is reasonable and/or a genuine pre-estimate loss. Parking eye should make it clear at this juncture that the commonly held legal argument that the amount claimed for breach of contract should reflect the losses incurred by the breach (and if they do not they should be considered a penalty) is no longer the method adopted by judges when deciding whether a charge is a penalty or not. Recently, judges have found the commercial justification argument to be more persuasive. This legal precedent essentially creates a third category for judges such charges, a charge for contractual breach does not necessarily need to be a pre-estimate of loss to be enforceable in law. There is much court authority to support this argument and as stated above is commonly held by courts as the method in which a contractual charge should be considered either a penalty, a pre-estimate of loss or enforceable on the basis of their being a commercial justification for the charge.

Parking eye would therefore argue that the charge (and the charge amount) is legally enforceable on the following three grounds a)that there is a strong commercial justification for the charge b) that there is ample case law suggest that the value of such a parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. We have also attached (annex) for further evidence a sample of recent court hearings were judges have found these charges to be either a penalty or a genuine pre-estimate of loss. In every case the judgment-for the full parking charge-was awarded to parking eye. This would further substantiate parking eye’s firm belief that its parking charges, levied for breach of contract, are legally enforceable and cannot be classed as a penalty.

They have put loads more information and different cases on this why the charge is not punitive and in the annex there is 11 different cases were the judge has favoured parking eye on there charge.

They also say

parking eye have instructed a barrister to give his opinion on the matter of pre-estimate of loss. He has stated that “the burden of proving that the fixed charge amounted to a penalty would be upon the motorist,” that parking eye should” document clearly an attempt to pre -estimate the loss occasioned,” and that,” the courts have recognised that this can be’ rough and ready’ and will not be defeated because it is not absolutely accurate. It may also be possible to achieve a global figure across the business.” this then is what we provide here.

This was supported in Mayhock v national car parks and fuller (2012).here the judge stated,” I do not find that this is a penalty. I think it is NCP doing its best in a very difficult field genuinely to pre-estimate loss.”.

It must therefore be noted this is a very difficult industry in which to determine a completely accurate pre-estimate loss. This will depend both on the losses to parking eye and on the potential losses to the landowner, which will vary depending on the time of day, the day of the week etc.

We have calculated the outstanding parking charge amount as a genuine pre-estimate of loss as we incur significant costs in managing this car park to ensure motorists comply with the stated terms and conditions and to follow up any breaches of these. These costs include (but are not restricted to):

Erection and maintenance of the site signage, installation, monitoring and maintenance of the automatic number plate recognition systems. Employment of office-based administrative staff, membership and other fees required to manage the business effectively including those paid to the bpa,dvla and ico,general costs including stationery, postage, etc.

This sum. And the calculations which have been made in setting it, has been approved and agreed by the landholder. This sum was also clearly laid out on the signage at the site and, by remaining on site, we contend that the motorist has accepted all of the prevailing terms and conditions of that contract, including the charge for breach of contract. Furthermore if the appellant believed terms to be unfair they should not of parked there in first place.

Here parking eye has focused on its losses,although,As noted above there are also significant losses incurred by the landholder.

The average payment by motorist who have issued with a parking charge is circa £63. Circa 84% of this payment (circa £53) covers parking eyes costs. This information has been taken from parking eyes company accounts and are publicly available. Parking eye is required to offer a 40% reduction to motorists for early repayment therefore this reduced amount needs to be greater than or equal to £53 in order for parking eye to operate as a business.

My early repayment was £40 raising to £70 so there saying this is fair.

In all the information sent there is things missing that I made points on

1)they have sent a witness statement signed on behalf of aldi saying they have authority to issue parking charges. I didn’t ask for this I asked for copy of a contract but this was not provided. Also

2)there was no evidence giving that the anpr image was accurate and
no proof of contemporaneous checks and maintenance of these cameras was given.

3)there was no defence that they have breached UK maternity protection law as covered in the Equality Act 2010 and why that has not been taking into account.

4)they also sent a plan were all signs were but on plan there is meant to be double sided sign in middle of car park and it is only one sided.(should I send picture of this to popla)

5)there is also no defence were signs does not tell drivers what they will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.

Was just wondering what to do now should I email popla again asking why information has not been given or leave it to them.

Any help be great as little worried now.

　

Stroma

They still haven't given anything about the pre estimate of loss, they must prove that your parking incident caused a loss. It's laughable that they have used a barrister to give them this garbage, they paid that barrister and he is not independent. They are just trying to bamboozle popla with points that are full of holes.

The witness statement is interesting, parking prankster is after copies of this, do you mind scanning it in and emailing him it?

markstokeshughes80

no not at all what is his email address?should i email popla back with points?