Suggested POPLA appeal template - core points.

Umkomaas

I think we should work on the basis that this is not a simple and single copy and paste for OPs, rather one that those with sufficient knowledge of the various nuances copy and paste from, subject to the individual's circumstances?

Guys_Dad

HO87. Thank you. Following your 3rd person point I have added an opening sentence in the signage section that I hope deals with this.

I have also tweaked my one reference to Vat to make it more relevant as an explanatory point as to why the lessee needs landowner permission to use a PPC.

On your other main thrust, I agree that this won't always be appropriate or answer all the points, but I hope it may be helpful to some If used intelligently and on the right occasions with suggestions as to what to include in addition.

Stroma

The problem is that if as HO87 says they don't post on here we are not sure the advice fits that person's circumstances. I can see the point of having letters as templates, but even Daisy emphasises the need to put it in your own words in her threads.

My thinking is that people should understand what they are using, otherwise if things go tits up they really don't understand what they are using. And that could have consequences if it went to a claim

4consumerrights

Interesting further comments by other posters -perhaps Guys Dad's POPLA should be labelled as a guidance idea rather than a template solution.

Regarding one size fits all - POPLA cases are currently in the main just being won on the point of GPEOL (so the fact we include this in every appeal just to win means we are tailoring in essence a one size fits all solution).

I agree that newbies should take some time in reading different threads and certainly understand what is being said. However, many of them are just copying and pasting POPLA appeals anyway only the other day I left a message to one OP as he copied an appeal leaving in two different parking companies: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4773156

With regards to planning permission and paying business rates - whilst this may be more useful in preparation of court cases; if the PPC is breaching fundamental planning consent and not paying appropriate taxes, then it is certainly more than questionable that the PPC cannot form a contract with the motorist in the first instance let alone pursue parking charges.

GermanKeeper

4consumerrights wrote: »

Interesting further comments by other posters -perhaps Guys Dad's POPLA should be labelled as a guidance idea rather than a template solution.

I agree.

I have some doubts about point 1: did this ever win at POPLA?
I think, this point should only be mentioned, if there is really a difference between the planning permission and the actual situation on the individual car park under consideration. A stupid question from a German: Does an English planning permission always contain regulations about the conditions for parking? Nethertheless the motorist may consult the planning commission if he has doubts, and in my opinion the onus is not on the operator to prove that there are no restriction in the planning permission respectively all restrictions are satisfied.
So this point should not be included in the list of points, which should be mentioned in every POPLA appeal, but it may occur in a list of conditional points.

Some other points which may lead to a win at POPLA, if some conditions are satisfied, should also be part of this "conditional" list of points in the guidance:
- NtK out of time
- NtK does not give enough information about the parking event or the regulation
- signs could not be seen at dark.

Perhaps further points, which may win under certain circumstances, can be found in the POPLA success thread:
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=59867667&postcount=2

and the official annual POPLA report: http://www.popla.org.uk/AnnualReport.htm

Guys_Dad

I specifically used the word "core" to try to indicate that there would be other points that may be added. I envisaged that regulars could point to this and then advise OPs to add Ntk out of time point, perhaps even supplying suitable words.

By the same token, suggestions that any point should be deleted may be appropriate. What I wanted to do was to give a format that would ensure that adjudicators did not miss points because of bad layout, superfluous words or appeals being truncated on online appeals. This happened only a couple of days ago.

Point 1 - well the first part - has won in court and it is the first part of a logical progression:-

Does the site have permission to operate a charging regime?
Does the operator have permission to operate in the way they are?
Are they following the required procedures?
Are they entitled to the money they are claiming?

Happy to change title that gets the above over. It's more of a structure or map than just guidance.

But it is also a short cut for regulars too avoid groundhog day and to give starting block for real novices if appropriate.

One final point. Putting operators to provide evidence as in most of these points is there because if you read POPLA decisions, the adjudicator grants many an appeal by saying that once an appellant has raised an issue the operator must address it or lose. It does put them to some inconvenience to provide the evidence requested above.

When they come back with their 40 page bundle of template evidence, it gives the OP the chance to put in a supplementary to POPLA drawing their attention to the evidence that the PPC has omitted. Should GPEOL ever be overturned as our silver bullet, it still leaves the door open to operator not addressing appellant's specific requests for evidence.

bod1467

Might be worth re-reading bullet point 2.

(Not the detail section, the bullet point at the top).

Guys_Dad

bod1467 wrote: »

Might be worth re-reading bullet point 2.

(Not the detail section, the bullet point at the top).

Thanks. Changed. Well spotted. :beer::beer:

Computersaysno

I think the important aspect is to get the GPEOL point right up front and centre.

Remember that POPLA assessors seem to be actively looking for GPEOL as a way of upholding the appeal and easily/quickly closing down the case. They are after all fighting to keep their jobs here.

So by all means pile on tens of pages of 'legalese' appeal points but make sure that GPEOL is right at the start to ensure maximum success.

Guys_Dad

Computersaysno wrote: »

I think the important aspect is to get the GPEOL point right up front and centre.

Remember that POPLA assessors seem to be actively looking for GPEOL as a way of upholding the appeal and easily/quickly closing down the case. They are after all fighting to keep their jobs here.

So by all means pile on tens of pages of 'legalese' appeal points but make sure that GPEOL is right at the start to ensure maximum success.

I understand where you are coming from, but I tended towards a logical structure that starts with the right bits are in place to allow the PPC to make its claim, and then take its claim apart. It is also done like that so newbies can see a logical sequence to our demolition of the whole PPC scam and why, even if they think the are "Guilty as charged", they may not be as PPCs may not have the right to be issuing tickets in the first place, not just that the charges are excessive.

I agree about GPEOL up at the front of an appeal, and that is why I have the individual appeal points bullet-pointed before they are expanded.

The layout also gives the Adjudicator the ability to skip the other points if they want an easy life or to examine the other points and, possibly, adjudicate on them in sequence. That would deal with your points on the POPLA thread about everything being GPEOL.

But there are other good appeals on the forum and do feel free to point OPs to them if they are more to your taste.

Edit 19/11/13

Other appeal points added in posts on this thread

1. ANPR appeal point - Post #22
2. Misleading and missing clearway signage - no contract with driver formed - Post #28
3. Equality Act wording and advice - Post #29