Soft appeal, rejected = POPLA time! Advice appreciated...

class_clown_2

Guys_Dad wrote: »

I am not sure why you have not used the wording in my Guidance thread for core appeal points that incorporates additional points under the whole contract area.

I reproduce it below as it is,( in my opinion !!!!!) slightly more comprehensive

1. No right to charge motorists for overstaying

Planning consent is required for car parks and have conditions that grant permission as the car park provides a service to the community. To bring in time limits, charges and ANPR cameras, planning consent is required for this variation. I have no evidence that planning consent was obtained for this change and I put the parking company to strict proof to provide evidence that there is planning consent to cover the current parking conditions and chargeable regime in this car park.

Additional paragraph where the land is not owned by the client (e.g. ALDI land where they are not the landowner)
"I note that the parking company has not been engaged by the landowner, but by a lessee or tenant of the land. I require proof from the actual landowner that their contract with the lessee/tenant gives authority for any form of parking restrictions or charges to be brought in. (There are VAT implications when a car park is a revenue generating business that may impact upon a landowner and that is why it needs to be established that they need to have granted permission in their lease.")
2. No valid contract with landowner

It is widely known that some contracts between landowner and parking company have ”authority limit clauses” that specify that parking companies are limited in the extent to which they may pursue motorists. One example from a case in the appeal court is Parking Eye –v- Somerfield Stores (2012) where Somerfield attempted to end the contract with Parking Eye as Parking Eye had exceeded the limit of action allowed under their contract.
In view of this, and the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice section 7 that demands that valid contract with mandatory clauses specifying the extent of the parking company’s authority, I require the parking company to produce a copy of the contract with the landowner that shows POPLA that they do, indeed have such authority.

It has also been widely reported that some parking companies have provided “witness statements” instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory on behalf of the landowner has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. I require, if such a witness statement is submitted, that it is accompanied by a letter, on landowner’s headed notepaper, and signed by a director or equivalent of the landowner, confirming that the signatory
is, indeed, authorised to act on behalf of the landowner ,has read and the relevant terms of the contract and is qualified to attest to the full limit of authority of the parking company

To be brutally honest, I couldn't find that thread...is it stickied?

But yes, why not add yet more too what is already the longest POPLA ever conceived

Thanks though - I've added a slightly tweaked version of point 2 under my point 4 (contract with landowner).

Part 1, however, simply hurts my brain too much and I just can't process how to juggle it in without adding under a different sub-heading...that would take me well over 3,000 words and even I think that's a bit too crazy...in a blind test the adjudicator won't be able to tell my appeal apart from the PE evidence pack

class_clown_2

Coupon-mad wrote: »

The only thing to be cautious about is, if you submit your appeal online to POPLA, I don't think all that wording will go through in the restricted wordcount box. So check that when you get an acknowledgement of the submission. Or just post it 1st class (get a free proof of posting from the PO) with a POPLA form stapled firmly to the front, downloaded from the BPA website - maybe it's on the POPLA website as well but I know it's on the BPA site!

Tick 3 out of 4 POPLA appeal points (just not the stolen car one).

Great - thank you so much for your labours. Not just for my case but the many others you clearly dedicate many hours to.

I think I'll go postal, it wasn't my initial intention, but I've made a big point of the layout and although it should have no impact in the ruling, I'll feel happier knowing I'm giving something physical.

Just numbering each page, putting a note of the POPLA reference on each page and giving it one final sub and hopefully I'll be ready to send.

Guys_Dad

class_clown wrote: »

To be brutally honest, I couldn't find that thread...is it stickied?

But yes, why not add yet more too what is already the longest POPLA ever conceived

Thanks though - I've added a slightly tweaked version of point 2 under my point 4 (contract with landowner).

Part 1, however, simply hurts my brain too much and I just can't process how to juggle it in without adding under a different sub-heading...that would take me well over 3,000 words and even I think that's a bit too crazy...in a blind test the adjudicator won't be able to tell my appeal apart from the PE evidence pack

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816165 This was my core appeal points thread. It worked from the right of the landowner to charge anyone upwards.

People always assume that the landowner has the right to form a contract and only challenge the right of the PPC but this is not always the case. If there is no planning consent for a chargeable car park, then the whole edifice crumbles.

Yes go postal with free cert of posting.

class_clown_2

All sent yesterday morning.

Tracker service from RM showing that the evidence is at the PO Box but hasn't been collected or signed for.

Deadline is today, any cause for concern? Or does the fact that it's THERE constitute a satisfaction of the "must be received within 28 days" condition?

4consumerrights

I think it must be received by the 28 day period - though others may be able to confirm this better.

IMO - also submit it online - POPLA have increased their word count to allow online appeals I've recently found. The only problem is that when they acknowledge on-line often all the paragraphs merge. The way around this though is to then submit the document again under additional evidence via the POPLA email address and attaching it as a word doucment - This has worked for me.

class_clown_2

4consumerrights wrote: »

I think it must be received by the 28 day period - though others may be able to confirm this better.

IMO - also submit it online - POPLA have increased their word count to allow online appeals I've recently found. The only problem is that when they acknowledge on-line often all the paragraphs merge. The way around this though is to then submit the document again under additional evidence via the POPLA email address and attaching it as a word doucment - This has worked for me.

Good work, thanks.

It could just be my machine, but just a general note of interest for anyone else who seeks to do this. The POPLA website happily accepted my images, but it did not allow me to submit my written evidence, either as a .doc file OR a .pdf despite the webpage communicating to the contrary.

Redx

class_clown wrote: »

Good work, thanks.

It could just be my machine, but just a general note of interest for anyone else who seeks to do this. The POPLA website happily accepted my images, but it did not allow me to submit my written evidence, either as a .doc file OR a .pdf despite the webpage communicating to the contrary.

when we tried with a popla appeal on line it rejected it, cannot remember the exact error now, but I have since read that it may fail in firefox but may be ok in internet explorer and opera - just a thought

4consumerrights

class_clown wrote: »

Good work, thanks.

It could just be my machine, but just a general note of interest for anyone else who seeks to do this. The POPLA website happily accepted my images, but it did not allow me to submit my written evidence, either as a .doc file OR a .pdf despite the webpage communicating to the contrary.

I had the same trouble - with one appeal I submitted for someone . The original POPLA appeal acknoweledgement came back but with no paragraph breaks. I then attached it as a doc file but POPLA couldn't read the written document this way - eventually accepted as word doc.

class_clown_2

Redx wrote: »

when we tried with a popla appeal on line it rejected it, cannot remember the exact error now, but I have since read that it may fail in firefox but may be ok in internet explorer and opera - just a thought

Interesting - I'm a Chrome user personally. Just tried IE which also came back with the same error that 4consumerrights cited above.

May just be a temporary issue, but one worth highlighting...

...in snail mail we trust!

4consumerrights

Mine failed in Firefox ......

Probably the problem is POPLA's end in receiving docs in certain formats!