Ethical Parking Management Fine - HELP

Umkomaas

Do you have two separate POPLA codes?

I've not read through your appeal in any detail, but unless you've added something over and above the standard winning appeal points whereby you describe the first incident, then you can send identical appeals. Obviously you need to make sure each appeal is referenced to its own verification code.

If you have described the incident in your first appeal, you will need to change in your second. But I wouldn't try to link the two appeals together to highlight any 'mistakes' - bad move.

londonerryan

Umkomaas wrote: »

Do you have two separate POPLA codes? If you have described the incident in your first appeal, you will need to change in your second. But I wouldn't try to link the two appeals together to highlight any 'mistakes' - bad move.

My last comment summed up the only differences.

I'm just wondering if the differences are significant enough to make the point.

I think so because i have the pay & display ticket from DAY 2, plus the purchased car permit from DAY 2 in my possession.

I can send those to POPLA once EPM have had their say and the appeal comes back to me, as well as a photo of the signage which doesn't comply with BPA.

Umkomaas

londonerryan wrote: »

My last comment summed up the only differences.

I'm just wondering if the differences are significant enough to make the point.

I think so because i have the pay & display ticket from DAY 2, plus the purchased car permit from DAY 2 in my possession.

I can send those to POPLA once EPM have had their say and the appeal comes back to me, as well as a photo of the signage which doesn't comply with BPA.

Your appeal, your call, it won't make any positive difference, but risks creating some confusion. Make it as easy and straightforward for POPLA.

It's more than likely that two quite separate Assessors will be dealing with your appeals, and given the backlog that seems to be appearing again, they will want to shunt out decisions quickly, so adding cross references wouldn't, IMO, expedite matters one bit.

You didn't confirm whether you have 2 separate verification codes.

londonerryan

Umkomaas wrote: »

You didn't confirm whether you have 2 separate verification codes.

Yes, two codes.

londonerryan

Okay, all sent. I emailed POPLA the same appeal which i wrote above a few posts ago twice (for the two separate PCN's).

Fingers crossed.

londonerryan

Hi everyone.

EPM have seemingly sent their counter-appeal to POPLA which has been forwarded to the owner.

I say seemingly since the form simply starts with: Parking on Private Land Appeals.

It comes with a checklist which points out the content of their letter.

The letter includes:

Case summary and rules/conditions
Parking charge notice and notes
Registered keeper details
Notice of rejection
Images and other evidence

I have one question before i detail any of their letter: Will the owner be receiving a letter like this from Popla to put a counter-appeal in? For example, to send in a photograph of the non-compliant signs in carpark?

What should we do next?

I was thinking of posting some of the 'faults' i believe exist in their rules and see if you agree these can be pointed out.

Dee140157

This sounds like the evidence pack that they have to send to POPLA with a copy to you. So this is normal.

It should be a good bed time read. Perhaps you can play the game "How many flaws are there? "

If there is anything very specific about your case you need to rebut you can email POPLA further, but they are usually quite good at reading the PPC's waffle accurately.

londonerryan

Dee140157 wrote: »

This sounds like the evidence pack that they have to send to POPLA with a copy to you. So this is normal.

It should be a good bed time read. Perhaps you can play the game "How many flaws are there? "

If there is anything very specific about your case you need to rebut you can email POPLA further, but they are usually quite good at reading the PPC's waffle accurately.

There are a few things in their terms and conditions which aren't true in the carpark. For example, it says 'all signs will have our contact details'. No they don't.

They have even CHANGED their signs in the last month or so. But, their signs still don't say anything other than the name of the college which i presume means the argument that they have not made a contract with the driver still exists since the driver is under the impression the carpark is run by the college and not EPM. I have a photo of their signs taken before the signs were changed (they now just emphasise how to pay and display).

Few other things too.

Do i now email POPLA or wait for them, and if so to what address?

Coupon-mad

Email POPLA - now - at the address you should find on the POPLA website or when you Google 'POPLA contact us'. Of course ensure you make it clear that this is your final response to the evidence you've just seen in case number xxxxxxxxxx and it is flawed because: ...............................

Is their 'GPEOL' statement as rubbish as this, or even the same?

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=63767815&postcount=55

londonerryan

This is the gist of their evidence:

I will write some questions for people to answer in RED if they can.

The first part are all the terms & conditions:

- EPM works within SIA guidelines.
- Signs, equipment etc belong to EPM.
- Agreement they have in place with college.
- You will receive a PCN if....
- Other usual stuff etc etc etc.

However, here are some points i picked up on:

- EPM provides car parking etc ..... This contract confirms that the Customer has given permission for EPM to provide a service to enforce parking on the customer's private parking facilities.

At first i thought 'customer' might mean college. But, no, because the college is referred to throughout as CLIENT. So, this means the people using carpark. So, does this mean that due to their names not being on any signage that this backs up the argument that the driver has not agreed to a contract with EPM?

- List of administration charges applied to notices where a rescind request is received from.... (then 1-7 days, 8-13 days etc and different costs).

I sort of understood this but not sure if relevant here. The GPEOL argument has already been put forward to POPLA.

- Signs and information:
a) At the commencement of this agreement, EPM will visit the site and affix warning signs. These signs will clearly state that parking is at the owner's risk and that any unauthorised vehicles will be immobolised and may be towed away.
b) All signs comply to SIA requirements and will be positioned so that at least one sign is visible and legible from anywhere that a vehicle could park on the site and at the entry point if appropriate. Where the site can be closed with gates, signs will be visible from outside the site.
c) Each sign clearly displays:
i) That if a vehicle is parked without authorisation or has contravened conditions, clamping/removal may take place at any time or during prescribed hours.
ii) The steps to be taken to secure release/retrieval of the vehicle.
iii) The release and tow away fee.
iv) The EPM contact details including a landline telephone number and an address for enquiries/complaints.
v) That the land is private property.

Where to begin.....

The old signage just said this:

WARNING
Parking Notice

By entering you agree not to breach the following conditions:

1. Parked without clearly displaying the required Car Park Permit and proof of payment.
2. Not parked wholly within a designated parking bay.

Failure to comply with any of these conditions you agree to pay the parking charge of £80.

The signage now reads:

COLLEGE PARKING REGULATIONS

Monday-Friday (& times), Term time only.

You must display: (pictures included).

PENALTY CHARGE £80 (reduced to £40 if paid within 14 days)
For failure to display a valid parking permit and proof of payment.

50p per day (or any part thereof)
Persistent offenders may be clamped

Then in the bottom corner is name of college.

- No mention of EPM, that it's private property, their contact details, any other removal charges, that parking is at owner's risk, release and tow away fees....

- Charges: a) The current fees for immobilisation, removal and storage of vehicles will apply as detailed on the Site Parking Notice Boards.

Well, these notice boards do not exist (or at least didn't exist back in January). There is nothing written in the carpark anywhere about fees for removal etc.

- Payments: b) The advertised fee is inclusive of VAT etc....

Again, it isn't advertised anywhere. The only 'advertised' fee is the PCN charge (£80), no mention of removal fees etc.

Then in the next section are photographs:

- They have photos of the car taken from JANUARY when the events took place.

- However, funnily enough, they have photos of the signage in place from APRIL which have shown the signage has changed. :rotfl:

The signage has changed as i said already.

There is no mention from them about the GPEOL. They haven't even attempted to make a case for that.

QUESTIONS:

1. Should i email all of this to POPLA detailing all of the nonsense in their argument?
2. Should i bring up they haven't made any attempt to explain their GPEOL?
3. What is the difference between BPA code and SIA code? Does the fact they 'comply to SIA requirements' (and not BPA code) something i need to mention?
4. Their new signage has clearly been put up (imo) due to them acknowledging faults in their signage. Should i make this point?
5. Should i bring up the point that despite new signage they still haven't formed a contract since EPM doesn't feature on it? AND the fact that old signage (which i will send photo of) is all that counts anyway?