Appeal Refused - What Now?

gallonofmagnet

arabesque_101 wrote: »

Was your appeal made as the "keeper" or as the "driver?" And was the keeper the driver? If the appeal was made as keeper, and the keeper wasn't the person who parked the car, then it is not too late for the keeper to nominate the driver. If this scenario applies to you let us know.

If you make this change do you have the possibility of having the POPLA case re-heard?

northseajoe

Redx wrote: »

well, as I see it the problem here is that you didnt mention not a gpeol and no contract in your popla appeal, so the assessor didnt consider them as they are not allowed to consider anything not mentioned, even if you would have won

the "super-appeal" cannot happen unless the assessor missed something or has ruled incorrectly, it appears they have done the job asked of them - to rule on your appeal

it appears this car park you parked on its not owned by the trust so they cannot intervene (I have read about one like this so this hospital may be the one I read about) if its the one I am thinking of there was some land further away from the hospital and somebody decided to make an extra car park and its not operated by the trust but its hard to see the "join"

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4263405

you cannot add those extra points to any new appeal so a "super-appeal" as you call it is unlikely to happen

if you find out who actually owns that land you could try appealing to them

CEL do issue MCOL (small claims) and have up to 6 years to do so , so you could fight your corner once an LBC and then MCOL arrives (which is likely with CEL in my opinion)

nb:- the small claims service has been going for many years, its how anybody can take another to court over unpaid bills etc , so not just parking invoices

Thanks Redx.

Yes, you're right - the link you posted is the same hospital, same car-park.

Regarding the 'super-appeal': I take your point that we can't go back and add on extra arguments. However, based on a purely common-sense interpretation (I know that's not a legal concept) I'd assumed that our 'signage' argument was valid. In other words, if we did exactly what it says on the sign, we'd fulfilled our end of the contract. In your opinion, is it worth asking for this point to be reviewed?

Joe

northseajoe

gallonofmagnet wrote: »

If you make this change do you have the possibility of having the POPLA case re-heard?

Um.. good question, gallonofmagnet. Obviously, I'm not smart enough to answer it. Anyone...?

Joe

nobbysn*ts

Make sure you have photographs of the current signs, and keep them in a safe place. Signs tend to suddenly change overnight! Take a photo of the text message confirming the vehicle reg was entered as well. If CEL do try it on, you have proof of the signage at that time, an the fact they confirmed by txt you complied.

northseajoe

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

Make sure you have photographs of the current signs, and keep them in a safe place. Signs tend to suddenly change overnight! Take a photo of the text message confirming the vehicle reg was entered as well. If CEL do try it on, you have proof of the signage at that time, an the fact they confirmed by txt you complied.

Thanks Nobby.

I do have pictures, and a blurry scan of the text message, but these obviously weren't seen as adequate by POPLA.

Now I clearly have the legal nous of a sand-worm, but based on common sense I'd have hoped that these represented clear evidence of deficient signage. Apparently not.

Redx

northseajoe wrote: »

Thanks Redx.

Yes, you're right - the link you posted is the same hospital, same car-park.

Regarding the 'super-appeal': I take your point that we can't go back and add on extra arguments. However, based on a purely common-sense interpretation (I know that's not a legal concept) I'd assumed that our 'signage' argument was valid. In other words, if we did exactly what it says on the sign, we'd fulfilled our end of the contract. In your opinion, is it worth asking for this point to be reviewed?

Joe

I think it would be hard to get it reviewed and you can see the furore on that other thread where we were looking for the "winning words" but were swamped by the "what happened"

obiously you can learn about the "rules" of this game and can introduce these issues if it went to an LBC or even to an MCOL - in other words you can defend your case on more points than the ones you raised at popla, you are not constrained by what is already on the table , but can add not a gpeol and no contract into the mix, plus a judge may consider you did everything possible to pay and so were not intending to defraud

so all is not lost but the inclusion of no contract and not a genuine pre estimate of loss in the popla appeal would definitely have been in your favour and I believe would have won at popla

always easy with hindsight, I know, but we can only deal with what has been done and when ( or not done which is harder to fix)

at the moment I cannot find the info I was searching for about this car park if its the overflow one I am thinking about, only the land registry can really help in finding the landowner of the old pub grounds , but if it is not the trust then clearly the trust and PALS cannot help

I truly wish you had come here for advice before your popla appeal went in , I really do, but none of us can turn the clock back just because we wish we had done something differently

the main thing here is come back for help if an LBC or MCOL arrives in the next 6 years, resurrect this thread by re-posting on it (as it has the info needed) and see what people say in their replies

in the meantime, keep all paperwork, pictures of signage and any other info required for any future claims

bear in mind a judge may have a different opinion of that signage and the text message than a popla assessor

northseajoe

Thanks again, Redx and everyone else.

I really am going offline now, but if anyone has any suggestions or questions, please post them and I'll reply next week.

Does anyone have thoughts on gallonofmagic's idea ie (a) clarifying that my wife was the driver and (b) resubmitting a (sensible) POPLA appeal on her behalf??

gallonofmagnet

northseajoe wrote: »

My 'appeal' - or 'dogs breakfast' as Redx might describe it - didn't state whether I was the keeper or driver. I just didn't appreciate niceties like that when I sent the letter.

In fact, I am the keeper, and my wife was the driver. I think. I know the last sentence isn't helpful, but at the time of parking our minds were on other matters.

I'm pretty sure my loved one was at the wheel, but I obviously don't want to drop her in in it!!


Joe

It's not dropping he rin it it's giving you a second bite of the cherry. :beer:

Coupon-mad

northseajoe wrote: »

Thanks again, Redx and everyone else.

I really am going offline now, but if anyone has any suggestions or questions, please post them and I'll reply next week.

Does anyone have thoughts on gallonofmagic's idea ie (a) clarifying that my wife was the driver and (b) resubmitting a (sensible) POPLA appeal on her behalf??

Technically yes - it fits the bill of 'resetting the clock' (our words not for repeating in any letter) which is explained in that well-hidden NEWBIES thread where I talk about 'too late to appeal - you think'? You can give the name and address of the driver using a particular template letter that I think is also linked there. I can't check as I am at work.

Basically as the driver has never had a PCN, the PPC *should* act upon the keeper's letter and reissue the PCN to the driver instead which starts the process anew. And this *should* still be the case even though the keeper has lost at POPLA. But the PPC and the BPA won't like it!

Thing is it would remove any liability for you as long as you give the name and address of the driver before court proceedings start (i.e. now). And the driver would never have had a PCN so if they suddenly got court papers their defence would be all the stronger.

But - and there is a but here - CEL are known NOT to use a POFA 2012 compliant NTK anyway so it depends if their Star Park version is any better. Probably not! Compare it to para 9 of the POFA 2012, it won't be compliant and may have arrived late!

POINT BEING THE KEEPER IS NOT LIABLE IF THE NTK ISN'T COMPLIANT OR WAS LATE! IF SO, DO NOT NAME THE DRIVER, KEEP IT IN YOUR HANDS AND YOU ARE NOT LIABLE (AND CEL ALWAYS LOSE IN COURT).

arabesque_101

Northseajoe, can you scan your notice to keeper after removing any identifing info such as notice number, time of day, etc. Then upload to a free image sharing website such as photobucket.com and then paste the link here.

Also, tell us how many days there were between the date of the parking event, and the date the notice to keeper was received.