POPLA test

tospig

I've now finally had an appeal by UKPC rejected and now have a POPLA code.

I remember reading somewhere (but I can't find where) talk about testing the system with appeals that aren't based on 'pre-estimate of loss'. Is this something that people want to try out, and if so I'd be a willing guinea pig?

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Well how about the lines of no contract only and that a witness statement is not acceptable as per a previous popla decision (see prankster link below)

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/assessor-rules-lead-adjudictors-witness.html

Go for it, ukpc wont take u to court me thinks if u loose

tospig

As in, no contract between me and UKPC, or no contract that gives UKPC proprietary rights in the land?

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

No contract between ukpc and the landowner.

Read the blog

tospig

I did.


.

Coupon-mad

tospig wrote: »

As in, no contract between me and UKPC, or no contract that gives UKPC proprietary rights in the land?[/QUOTE]


I would go for just that point - why not if you are up to test it? :T

Word it well though, it's not just about having an interest in the land, it's also about insisting they show their contract in their evidence to POPLA and that it must be BPA compliant including allowing UKPC to pursue drivers in the courts.

tospig

Coupon-mad wrote: »

why not if you are up to test it?

Certainly am.
I've also got another ticket from them that I haven't appealed yet so might be up for another test shortly


Thanks for the suggestion. I'll put something together and post it back up here for comments.

Coupon-mad

Arguing ONLY non-compliant, unclear entrance signage which the driver didn't see (citing case law, Lord Denning, the BPA CoP etc.) would be another grounds of appeal that would be worthwhile testing.

And an Airport or railway one which isn't POFA 'relevant land' due to bylaws, would be a good test for a registered keeper to argue about having absolute, irrefutable non-liability in law, especially if they were not driving.

tospig

Having stolen words from a few other appeals I've put the following appeal together. Do you think I've addressed the right issues in the right way?

Appeal to UKPC Ltd's Parking Charge Notice number: xxxxxxxxx

I am not liable for the charge as UKPC Ltd have not shown they have either:

1. Written authorisation of the landowner to pursue outstanding parking charges;
2. A contract with the landowner that bestows them (UKPC Ltd) with the authority to make a contract with a driver who has parked on the land.

UKPC Ltd must show their contract, which also must be BPA compliant to demonstrate that they:

1. Are allowed to pursue outstanding parking charges;
2. Have the authority to make a contract between themselves and the appellant.

In POPLA case reference 1771073004 the assessor ruled that a witness statement was not valid. This witness statement, based on the template provided by the POPLA Lead Adjudicator, concerned evidence which could have been produced but was not. This is exactly analogous to the current case if the operator produces a witness statement regarding contract documents between the operator and the landowner; the alleged contract is a document which the operator could produce (if it exists) but chooses not to. I request therefore that POPLA is consistent in its processes and also rules any witness statement produced by the operator invalid.

Computersaysno

Yes it's definitely worth trying these two as yet untested arguments in the same appeal.

Usually if the adjudicator finds one reason valid, they will not bother to make an adjudication [either way] or even comment on the other points [ie they skim read the case and look for an easy decision].

So if they do find one of them valid, you can always try the 'un-assessed' one on your next appeal.

If both fail, then we have learned something useful.

I've been trying to get tickets for ages, but can't!!!!

Coupon-mad

I think I would say 'pursue outstanding parking charges through the courts' because I think that's how the BPA CoP words it (worth checking).

A good test case! :T