Question for the "Experts"

trubster

I am really struggling to understand why we are advising people to await the NTK when it clearly is a slam dunk win on the GPEOL POPLA appeal.

It is on here and PPP that everyone is being advised to wait, I really can not see the point, but if someone is able to enlighten me, I would appreciate it.

Also, Why on earth do we need a POPLA appeal that is 3 pages long? I sent in one like the example below and it was granted because of the GPEOL, POPLA simply do not bother looking at anything other than this but still we send in loads of text to POPLA - Think of the trees

My appeal is on the following points, but to save the assessor some time reading it, I will point out at the start that the charge for allegedly breaching ECP's terms is NOT a genuine pre estimate of loss and clearly an unenforceable penalty. That should be a slam dunk win but I will waste a bit of time with my real appeal below.

An occupant of the vehicle is covered by the Equality Act and Euro Car Parks has a duty to make "Reasonable adjustments" under the Equality Act. This would have been clear to Euro Car Parks had they seen the vehicle, but as the ticket is an ANPR one, they would not have had the chance to examine the vehicle for any indicators such as a blue badge etc.

Euro Car Parks point out on the rejection letter they should have been made aware either by informing a store (I have since returned to a store and been told they have nothing to do with Euro Car Parks - so this would not work), or by phoning them on the help number on "ALL our signage". As you can clearly see from the sign on page 2 of the rejection letter, there is NO phone number on the sign (Unless it is in the microscopic print which can not even be read on revisiting the site)

As pointed out on the rejection letter, Euro Car Parks think they are not in breach of the Equality Act as they were not aware of the status of the vehicle occupants. This is no longer the case as when I sent in my appeal I made them aware, from this point the charge should have been cancelled.

The signs on site are also too high and the text is too small to read while driving into the car park. Since being in contact with someone who has been bitten by a radioactive spider, my eyesight is very good but even I can not read the signage.

I also put Euro Car Parks to proof that they have permission to issue charges by the landowner.

Finally, as pointed out at the start, this charge is clearly a penalty and not a genuine pre estimate of loss.

Many Thanks

bod1467

Awaiting the NtK simply gives more rope for the PPC to hang themselves, as they almost always get the wording wrong so there is no keeper liability anyway. If for whatever reason they take it to court, it gives more ammunition for the defence - they are pursuing the wrong party as they haven't legally established keeper liability.

Hot_Bring

Re the waiting for NtK - for the simple reason that POFA lays down some very specific conditions on the RK being held responsible. Many, if not most, PPCs don't adhere to these conditions - i.e. they send a non-compliant NtK. This means they can only take the DRIVER to court. As we know, identifying the driver can be tricky

As for long POPLA appeals. This is a matter of opinion. Many think throwing everything covers all bases, others ( such as myself ) think short and sweet is best. It doesn't really matter just as long as we keep getting the wins.

trubster

Hot_Bring wrote: »

As for long POPLA appeals. This is a matter of opinion. Many think throwing everything covers all bases, others ( such as myself ) think short and sweet is best. It doesn't really matter just as long as we keep getting the wins.

I am going to try out my next popla appeal and see if it works

"This charge is not a genuine pre estimate of loss and is clearly a penalty"

and see if that wins

I see what you guys are saying about keeper liability, but what does it matter when POPLA and the courts are throwing these charges out on GPEOL anyway?

Hot_Bring

trubster wrote: »

I see what you guys are saying about keeper liability, but what does it matter when POPLA and the courts are throwing these charges out on GPEOL anyway?

Court is stressful, complex and often a lottery. If they don't know who to take to court then they can't take anyone to court.

Stroma

What happens if popla suddenly says that pre estimate of loss is not valid appeal point ? The fact is they are the bpa lackeys so when enough pressure is applied they will change their tune at some point. So that being the case appeal on as many points as possible.

HO87

Given that GPEOL is currently the ground of choice at POPLA the chances of your winning are pretty high.

Keep in mind that there are two differing types of NtK. One that is served using ANPR and one served between Days 29 and 56 following a windscreen ticket (and technically a third variant in the shape of a Notice to Hirer). In the case of a windscreen ticket it is clearly easier to argue that the RK was unaware of the PCN or at least it cannot be assumed by the PPC that they were. In each case there is provision for the RK to appeal and in so doing the RK ensures that the PPC continues to be ignorant of the driver's identity. Should they identify the driver than a PPC can revert to a pre-POFA course of action and issue proceedings against the driver without fear of having to demonstrate that they adhered to all the POFA "nonsense". Ensuring that they remain in the dark about who the driver was locks them into a POFA RK-liability case only. It makes their job harder.

Your proposed course of action assumes that you do not find yourself locking horns with the likes of PE who will hold firm to their self-imposed deadlines with regard to appeals and you don't get a POPLA code.

trubster

Thanks Stroma and HO87.

@Stroma - Can you really see POPLA saying NO to a GPEOL appeal after they have granted so many?

I can take my tin foil hat off now I was just very curious as to why we go through the lengthy processes, taking almost 4 months to deal with tickets by time popla get back with a decision.

Thanks for all your responses.

bod1467

Given that POPLA don't even follow legislation at times (e.g. Equality Act 2010) then it would be no surprise if they suddenly danced to a new tune and started accepting a PPC's GPEOL story. (After all, they have tried to coach the PPCs on this matter already).

trubster

I cant stop laughing now - Guess what landed on my doorstep 5 minutes ago!

Yep, ANOTHER ECP PCN

Do these guys ever learn?

HO87

Haha - Just as well - they're easy to beat and don't do court.

There are just a few PPC's charges that POPLA has accepted as GPEOL - Napier for one.

GPEOL would fail in the face of a contractual charge model.