named driver to reset clock

notparked

thanks for reply
their signage could have changed since the charge from 7 months ago
I just needed re-assurance that it's not unusual.

Coupon-mad

You should email POPLA to rebut the evidence pack. Say that the photos of signs are not from seven months ago as far as you can tell. And that they cannot include the full cost of handling a POPLA appeal because many PCNs are never appealed and only 2% of cases go to POPLA. Therefore it cannot be in the reasonable contemplation of Highview at the point of issuing, say, 100 PCNs a day, that these will even go to appeal, let alone POPLA. It is a fact that only 2 out of 100 will go to POPLA, on average, so a GPEOL which includes hours spent on POPLA appeal handling is not a GPEOL at all. It's an attempt to list actual costs after the event, which was specifically pointed out be the POPLA Lead Adjudicator not to be allowable as a GPEOL statement.

And add any other rebuttal points you fancy adding. Try to disagree with everything if you can!

In the subject line of the email, obviously put the POPLA code and something like 'urgent rebuttal representations against the evidence pack'.

notparked

Thanks for the advice.
I asked about listing the POPLA costs in previous post as I thought this was out of order.
The PCN was for night time and their photos of signs were in daylight
and in the same week the landowner was in the local press urging people to appeal wrongfully isssued PCN's and also stated that he was going to change and improve the signage etc.
I have emailed the rebuttal to POPLA

thanks

ampersand

Can you copy in that local press article too?
Just don't implicate yourself as driver. Does landowner actually say/mean 'he was going to change and improve the signage etc.'? i.e.himself? or an instruction to an agent? or unclear?

notparked

I am neither the owner nor the driver but am related to both, I am trying to help them to avoid this charge.

the link is here http://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/Owner-car-parks-urges-motorists-appeal-charges/story-20672945-detail/story.html

I originally quoted some of it in the signage paragraph of my draft appeal letter but was advised to remove it, as can be seen earlier in this thread.

actual quote
THE businessman who owns the car parks at the centre of the controversy has urged motorists hit by the fines to appeal against the charges.
Paul Walters, of Newcastle, said he was upset that some drivers may have been sent fines despite paying for their stay.

He has declined to offer refunds to those who have already paid fines, but urged customers who have paid money to use the car park and still been fined to contact Highview, the management company responsible for the car parks.
Mr Walters, who once ran the now-closed Void nightclub in Hanley, said: "I'm horrified to hear that my customers have been fined when they've bought a ticket.
"I know a lot of people have had their fines overturned after they appealed to Highview, so I would encourage anyone who has been treated unfairly to get in touch with them too.

He said: "I brought in Highview because I would go down in the evening and see 30 cars parked and only four would have tickets. I have all-day parking so it's difficult to patrol every hour at all times of the day and night. I've worked very hard and built the business up from nothing. I just want to get people to pay the fee, which to be fair is one of the cheapest and most convenient all-day parking in Hanley."
Mr Walters said he would put up bigger signs to ensure his customers are aware of what they need to do to avoid fines.

end quote

.I have already added 1 rebuttal , I don't really want to 'bombard' POPLA with additional 'bits' of evidence rebuttal.
But will do if considered appropriate

Dee140157

Oh you have to play the game. If they have hit you with 80-90 pages of evidence yo have to send something good back

You could make it into a poem, perhaps a sonnet. A haiku might be too short. Perhaps draw a pretty picture, or send them a PDFs of a mind map with i divisor rebuttals in each section. Do something original but still with the relevant rebuttal points in. Make an assessor laugh. I suspect POPLA don't even bother looking at the full evidence pack. When have they got time to read 97 pages of evidence. It's not a court case!

Coupon-mad

But if you have better things to do then no worries because you WILL beat Highview!

notparked

thanks C-M , yes I do have other things to do

notparked

thanks to everyone on the forum who helped and advised, particularly Coupon-Mad :T
here is the text from the pdf

02 October 2014
-v-
Highview Parking Limited (Operator)

The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has
determined that the appeal be allowed.

The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.
The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

A parking charge notice was issued for failing to purchase sufficient
parking time for the full duration of the visit.

The Operator’s case is that the terms and conditions applicable to the site state that motorists are required to purchase parking time when parking at the site. The terms and conditions are displayed on signage at the site and as a result of parking failing to purchase sufficient parking time; the Appellant was parked in breach of the terms and conditions.

The Appellant’s case is that:
a) The charge is not a genuine pre estimate of loss.
b) The Operator has not shown that they have the authority to levy
charges.
c) The signage at the site is unclear and does not comply with the BPA
Code.
d) The ANPR at the site is inaccurate and does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice.

Considering carefully all the evidence before me, the Appellant has stated that the charge is not a genuine pre estimate of loss and the onus is then on the Operator to show that the charge is representative of the losses incurred as a result of a breach of the terms and conditions. In order for consequential losses to flow from a breach of the terms and conditions, there must be an initial loss incurred by the Operator. In this case, the Operator has shown that there is an initial loss as a tariff is payable at the site.

The Operator has submitted a breakdown of the losses incurred as a result of the breach and a large percentage of the amount comes from staff costs.
Whilst staff costs may fall within a genuine pre estimate of loss, in this case, the Operator has included ‘overheads,’ within their staff costs. Overheads are a general operating cost that would have been incurred even if the motorist had parked in accordance with the terms and conditions and are therefore not a cost that can be incurred as a result of a breach of the terms and conditions.
The ‘overheads,’ amount is included with the largest amounts listed on the breakdown and I am unable to determine the amount of the figure that is attributable to overheads.
As the amount for overheads cannot be separated from the overall amount, the amounts must be discounted from the breakdown.
In the absence of further explanation as to the overhead
amount being claimed, I am not satisfied that the amount of the charge is
substantially linked to the loss incurred as a result of the breach.

The Operator has indicated that the charge is commercially justified and has provided case law in in support of this submission.
In cases I have seen from the higher courts, it is clear that the charge cannot be commercially justified if the primary purpose of the charge is to deter a breach.

Where the charge represents damages, the amount of the charge is required to be compensatory rather than punitive; with the goal of placing the parties in the position they would have been in, had the contract been performed.
In this case, the primary purpose of the charge is to prevent vehicles from parking without purchasing parking time.
This is to deter a breach of the terms and conditions and I am consequently not satisfied that the charge can be commercially justified.

The Operator has not demonstrated that the charge is a genuine pre estimate of loss or commercially justified and I therefore have no evidence before me to refute the Appellant’s submission that the charge does not amount to a genuine pre estimate of loss.
As a result, I need not decide any other issues raised by the Appellant.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.
Shehla Pirwany
Assessor

notparked

I wanted to post with bold title of ALLOWED so it was more noticeable but didn't know how:)