Paid for parking but POLA appeal refused.

Redx

gallonofmagnet wrote: »

Got the evidence pack on 30 June for appeal on 08 July. Is that enough time? Obviuosly not if I didn't win! :rotfl:

I believe over 1 week is enough time according to their "rules" and so maybe you should have studied it and rebutted more of their arguments (if you didnt do so) - or asked popla to delay the decision pending your rebuttals

I believe you didnt win because the assessor missed the paragraph coupon-mad posted about due to all the waffle you seem to have written in your opening post that wont be considered by popla and is what the assessor has written about in his denial of the appeal

it seems grounds for an appeal to r reeve though , seeing as its been missed, a shame it wasnt more prominent

I agree with nigelbb here, ideally we need to see all of this in order to fully assess it , the assessor has seen it all, we havent !

gallonofmagnet

Appeal is at the top of this thread.

gallonofmagnet

coupon-mad wrote: »

if you definitely had this point (below) with the word 'loss' in it then i would be emailing popla's service manager to point out the assessor has missed your assertion that it was not a gpeol in your final paragraph which said:

'the loss incurred by the operator is a matter of the time spent in the car park without making the relevant payment. This is a quantifiable loss as can be seen on the sign which displays the actual normal parking fee. In this case the correct amount - £1.20 - was paid at the time it was requested to excel parking services via their own supplied pay and display machine. therefore the amount outstanding to be paid in this instance is £0.00. '

rreeve@popla.org.uk

ask for the case to be reviewed because the question of no quantifiable loss was ignored.

i have just copied and pasted my email to popla

Redx

so only the bottom part that CM mentioned is actually relevant here ?

please look at this example from here of what a similar popla appeal SHOULD look like https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/64393064#Comment_64393064

you can see how its laid out, the explanations for each appeal point and the winning points for popla

a pity yours wasnt that one adapted for your circumstances otherwise you would be celebrating a win now

I suggest you do as CM says and complain to r reeve as you seem to have mentioned it being not a gpeol, in a roundabout way

gallonofmagnet

:mad: I rang popla to ask who i complain to that my apeal has not been dealt with correctly and they gave me a name at london councils

gallonofmagnet

Here is my draft complaint which was due to be sent to London Councils, but I will also send to r reeve.


Re: POPLA Appeal Reference 25614*****
Company PCN Reference Number XL079*****

Dear ,

We have been given your name as the correct person to address my complaints regarding the above POPLA appeal. If this is incorrect could you please confirm this to me in writing so we can pass the information back to POPLA and add it to the list of inappropriate behaviours they consider acceptable.

We would like to make our complaint in respect of the handling of this appeal by POPLA and the POPLA appointed Assessor, for the following reasons:

Our appeal was brought on several points concerning a contract between ourselves and Excel Parking Services Limited (“Excel”) none of which we believe have been addressed during the assessors’ deliberations. We have included below the most salient points we feel have not been addressed by POPLA and the assessor and ask for a full investigation into the actions of both parties during the assessment of our appeal and a re-evaluation of this appeal take place.

1 - (i) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.
(ii) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.
(iii) An unfair term in a contract concluded with a consumer by a seller or supplier shall not be binding on the consumer.

This point in our opinion was breached by the faulty machinery and ambiguous signage provided by Excel which did not make it clear as to what constitutes a valid ticket and therefore the term for entering the vehicle registration number cannot be binding to us or any other party using these facilities.

I feel that during their deliberations POPLA and their assessor did not make any consideration to this point as it is not included in the determination statement supplied.

2 - (i) Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation.
(ii) It is unfair to impose disproportionate sanctions for breach of contract. A requirement to pay more in compensation for a breach than a reasonable pre-estimate of the loss caused to the supplier is one kind of excessive penalty. Such a requirement will, in any case, normally be void to the extent that it amounts to a penalty under English common law.!

It is our stance that the quantifiable loss in this case to the operator is £0.00. This is calculated thus:
Operators own normal charges for parking - the amount not paid by the party wishing to park.
As a more than adequate amount of parking time was purchased at the time of the alleged breach there is no further outstanding balance to be paid to Excel, and any consideration of a higher amount must therefore be considered to amount to a penalty which is not allowed.

No evidence to the contrary has been supplied by Excel both during the appeal directly to the company or during the POPLA appeal.

POPLA and their assessor have failed to address this point in its entirety.

We have also noted a number of factual inaccuracies in the determination delivered to us by POPLA and relating to the timings of when other motorists were using the same machine. Assumptions as to other motorists interaction with the said machine have also been made which cannot be verified from the evidence submitted i.e. the determination assumes that the other motorists suffered no problems entering their details in to the machine keypad. This verdict cannot be ascertained from the mere presentation of a spreadsheet of registration numbers. Therefore we request you scrutinise this determination document against the evidence provided and ask if these inaccuracies and assumptions can make this appeal verdict valid?

We would like to also state for purposes of the investigation that it is not the appellants duty to make POPLA aware of the rules and regulations it is required to assess appeals under (Be these imposed by themselves, a regulatory body or the law of the land) and any ignorance of or disregard for these should be seen as being unfit to fulfil the role which they are employed or empowered to provide. The above points are covered in both the British Parking Associations own code of conduct and in common consumer protection law and should be considered when an appeal is made. It is my opinion that this has not happened in this appeal.

In order for you to investigate the above allegations we will not be accepting the appeal decision granted on 9th July 2014.

We hope this information is enough for you to conduct your investigations into this appeal, however if you wish to discuss our complaint further please do not hesitate to contact us.

We will be expecting a confirmation of receipt of this complaint and a full indication of timescales involved to have the matter investigated and we look forward to hearing your findings and how you suggest we proceed to have the appeal re-heard by a competent body.

Hot_Bring

gallonofmagnet wrote: »

:mad: I rang popla to ask who i complain to that my apeal has not been dealt with correctly and they gave me a name at london councils

POPLA is run by London Councils.

gallonofmagnet

How do I upload the Excel evidence? It's a lot.

gallonofmagnet

Hot_Bring wrote: »

POPLA is run by London Councils.

I'll send it to both then. At least one will look at it.

Redx

glad to see the magic bullet (not a genuine pre estimate of loss2 in that email

hopefully this will trigger a reassessment and hopefully you will win

in future, I would respectfully suggest you make any popla appeals similar to the one I linked to or those in the NEWBIES thread linked in post 3 in there

please let us know the outcome , thanks

you cannot upload stuff onto here, but you can host pics on tinypic