POPLA appeal draft - suggestions please

Coupon-mad

I would quickly respond to POPLA about this 'evidence' as they should now be making a decision in a week or two.

They've also included a letter from the company in question "confirming that Athena ANPR have a contract with us to manage the parking arrangements on some of our properties". It then goes on to say they have authorised the PCC to issue charges and taking further action against non-payment.

Point out the failings with that letter. For example:

- if it doesn't stipulate this actual car park!

- if it is not clear what 'authority' the random signatory does or does not have to sign such documents on behalf of Lidl or whoever

- if there is no company stamp on the letter (how do you know it's not home made and signed by just anyone, is this even a Lidl employee at all?)

- if there is no witness to that signatory then how can it be acceptable

- if the date on the letter looks to have been added in different handwriting from the signatory

- if it doesn't make it clear whether Athena are merely an agent carrying out 'parking overseeing' duties or whether they are authorised to form contracts with customers and pursue the matter IN THE COURTS in their own name as creditor.

- if it only says 'further action' this doesn't meet the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice re 'landowner contracts' (quote the CoP, Google it, read it and use it to your advantage)

- in any case, a witness statement is not acceptable in lieu of the actual contract because neither you nor POPLA can possibly make an informed decision as to whether the contract is in fact BPA CoP compliant if Athena insist on hiding that document. You could even cite that the Lead Adjudicator's reply to the Parking Prankster (blogger) has made it clear that witness statements in lieu of tangible evidence are not sufficient:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/witness-statements-not-enough-for-popla.html

And add that indeed 'the driver' WAS a customer so Athena are wrong.

Guys_Dad

Is the company who signed the contract the actual landowner? If not, then by what authority are they able to make a contract with the PPC?

Do they have authority from the landowner for such a contract?

Find out from the local authority who is the landowner.

Is there planning permission for a car park with limited hours parking and is that the number of hours on their signs? Council planning dept.

Although I do think that if they haven't addressed GPEOL, they are in trouble unless you get the rogue assessor who appeared last week.

p5x

Got my POPLA appeal back today and they allowed the appeal on the basis of "no contractual authority to levy charges". It seems they didn't even consider the full appeal, just my response to Athena's pack and I pointed out that the contract/letter didn't specify the actual car park concerned, as you all suggested above.

Here's the full response if anyone is interested:

The appellant has made various representations; I have not dealt with them
all as I am allowing this appeal on the following ground.

It is the appellant’s case that the operator does not have contractual
authority to levy charges.

Thee operator in response has provided a statement which is signed by a
director whom I consider to have sufficient authority too sign the statement on
behalf of Lidl. This statement provides that the operator has authority to levy
parking charge notices on some of Lidl’s properties but does not specify that
this site is one of those properties. .

Considering carefully, all the evidence before me, thee statement provided as
evidence by the operator does not state that the operator has the authority
to levy charges on the site in question; this issue is also raised by the appellant.
Therefore, I find that thee operator has not shown that they have sufficient
authority to issue parking charge notices at the site.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

Thanks again to everyone, especially coupon mad, for all your help:j

Umkomaas

Well done OP on a satisfying win.

It does make you wonder just how inefficient these operators are when they leave so many loopholes wide open in their POPLA submissions.

Even the most inexperienced newbie posting on this (and PePiPoo) forum are far more savvy than the 'professionals' who deal with this stuff day in, day out.

Gives me a warm glow

p5x

True, but I guess most people pay up without hesitation and it'd be too much effort for them to really defend their charges properly at POPLA.