POPLA refusal! need help

user24601

user24601 wrote: »

Struggeling to get the URL up, even changing the tt to xx and adding spaces etc...can i send it to you in a private message Coupon-mad?

h$$ps:// (3xW) .dropbox (DOT)com /sh/0xigsf089ntqjug /AACk6YUMYRasMCj2MMVdVW0ea?dl=0

...sorry, lots of spaces to delete! change dollars and 3xW and (DOT)

user24601

user24601 wrote: »

h$$ps:// (3xW) .dropbox (DOT)com /sh/0xigsf089ntqjug /AACk6YUMYRasMCj2MMVdVW0ea?dl=0

...sorry, lots of spaces to delete! change dollars and 3xW and (DOT)

You are right and the email I received was from PPS, to POPLA, supplying their evidence. I have followed the advice of Coupon-mad and put everything into a folder on dropbox. Hopefully the above link should take you there...


A few things I picked out of there letter:
1) Images folder – images are of signs across the site, which has a number of car parks, not all of them are of the car park I was in so are irrelevant.
2) I did stupidly give my name and say I received it but I didn’t say I was driving or that I parked, so could still argue the registered keeper point? Often my wife will drop the car off there for me to pick it up.
3) They make reference to an image I supplied with my appeal, with the permit and the window fine together on the window, as if I am suggesting they broke into my car, moved the permit, took the photo then put it back again. The photo I supplied was actually of the permit and the fine resting on my leg while I was sat in the car. The purpose of this was to have a date stamped image of my permit with the fine i.e. it was in the car just not on display. I live miles away so there was no chance I went home to get it to take the photo. So they misunderstood the purpose of that photo. I put that in the dropbox folder

So as I understand I should e-mail POPLA with my final/closing statement? I will patiently wait on your advice.

Thanks very much!

Umkomaas

user24601 wrote: »

h$$ps:// (3xW) .dropbox (DOT)com /sh/0xigsf089ntqjug /AACk6YUMYRasMCj2MMVdVW0ea?dl=0

...sorry, lots of spaces to delete! change dollars and 3xW and (DOT)

You need to redact all your personal details from the documents you've put on Dropbox under the above link. So I won't convert it until you've done so.

Place a confirmation on this thread when it's done then I (or another regular, whoever's first) will do the conversion.

user24601

Umkomaas wrote: »

You need to redact all your personal details from the documents you've put on Dropbox under the above link. So I won't convert it until you've done so.

Place a confirmation on this thread when it's done then I (or another regular, whoever's first) will do the conversion.

Thanks for this, have bow done that, let me know if the link still works

Umkomaas

Well here's your converted link:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/0xigsf089ntqjug/AACk6YUMYRasMCj2MMVdVW0ea?dl=0

But so many files - there's dozens of them!

If you want your basic POPLA appeal to have a quick check-over, just post it into a reply box and submit; you'll have a far better chance of an informed opinion.

user24601

Okie doke, I will delete all the files except for the letter from PPS to POPLA in response to my POPLA appeal. As that is a good number of pages! I think coupon-mad asked to see it. My POPLA appeal has already gone in, just wondering if I am supposed to do something now they have the PPS evidence pack.

user24601

I've put the case summary letter up so no need to look through files to find it. Just the one doc now. Sorry

bod1467

Your task now is to look at the PPS evidence pack and rebut any claim that may harm your appeal.

E.g. if they have put in a GPEoL statement, ask for evidence that this was compiled BEFORE the date of the PCN. If it wasn't then it can't have been a Pre estimate of loss, can it?

user24601

bod1467 wrote: »

Your task now is to look at the PPS evidence pack and rebut any claim that may harm your appeal.

E.g. if they have put in a GPEoL statement, ask for evidence that this was compiled BEFORE the date of the PCN. If it wasn't then it can't have been a Pre estimate of loss, can it?

Ok, the case sumamry letter is too long to post up here, but I have gone through and added a bullet with text in italics where i am trying to rebut a point. What is the best way to do this and who do i send too? POPLA or PPS?

My main points are the following:

The complainant’s initial appeal stated that although theyhave paid for a permit it was not displayed in the vehicle at the time of thecontravention as they use two vehicles and the permit is not therefore fixed tothe windscreen of either vehicle.

· Actuallyin my initial appeal I did not say it wasn’t displayed – but not permanentlyaffixed to my windscreen.

They quite clearly indicated that they were the driver.

· I did notsay I was the driver. I said the parkingcharge was issued to me. I said I paidfor a permit. I said the vehicle was myvehicle. They assume I was the driver.

In our reply we confirmed that no permit had been displayedat the time the PCN was issued as per the terms and conditions of parking sothe PCN was correctly issued. We stated that our signage is clear and in excessof industry standards. We evidenced this with photographs.

· Many ofthe photographs were of signs in other car parks on the site. The site has a number of car parks on site.

We also stated that it is the responsibility of the driverto adhere to the terms and conditions.

· In myappeal I said the following: “The Operator must prove that the driver actuallysaw, read and accepted terms to 'continuously display' a permit, even inthe driver's absence after parking. My contention is that the signage does notcommunicate that specific contractual requirement. The wording only mentionsplacing a permit on the dashboard - and the driver did comply with the signagein this regard.” However my permit wasnot on the dashboard when they took their photos…

Nevertheless the complainant appealed to POPLA again,stating that they were the registered Keeper of the vehicle and that theparking event did not occur. Their appeal is based on the following:

1. Not a genuine pre-estimation of loss.

2. We have no contract with the landowner.

3. Failure to establish keeper liability under theProtection of Freedom Act.

4. The signage created no contract with the driver.

5. The amount required to park (i.e. for a permit) had beenpaid and been displayed on the dashboard as required and therefore we did notmitigate any loss.

6. The contravention as described did not occur.

· They haveincorrectly summarised my 6 points. Which are as follows:

1. The intention of PPS' charge was not basedon any advance regard to genuine pre-estimate of loss, ratherthey intended it to be a tariff. They have massaged their POPLA evidence now tomanufacture a 'loss' statement which duplicates layers of staff time, includesdouble counting and is not applicable to 98% of PCNs. It is at best, a crudecalculation of the actual loss suffered, made afterwards.

2. The parking company has no contractwith the landowner that permits them to pursue these charges through the courtsin their own name.

3. Failure to establish keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act.

4. The upright signage at the entranceand around the car park created no contract with the driver to 'continuouslydisplay' parking permits.

5. The amount required to attain a parking permit for the site had been paidand permit had been displayed on the dashboard as required. PPS did notmitigate any 'loss'.

6. The contravention as described didnot occur.


You will see, quite clearly in our “images” folder thatthere is no valid permit on display, a fact that in their initial appeal to usthey do not deny. There is a Citadel Hill permit which is not one of our carparks and does not entitle the vehicle to park at Plymouth Science Park. Thereis also a National Trust sticker.

· I did notdeny the permit was not on display, but I did not say I didn’t put on there andI did provide evidence of the permit being inside the vehicle. I explained why I could not permanently affixthe permit. My point on Conditions ofSignage is that they do not say the driver must continually display a permit, evenin their absence.



A copy of the PCN is enclosed. Given the evidence producedthis PCN was issued correctly. Production of a permit after the event does notdischarge the responsibility of parking in accordance with the advertised termsand conditions of parking at the time of parking. Our attendants can onlyexamine a vehicle in the condition in which it is left. It is theresponsibility of the driver to check that the advertised terms and conditionsare adhered to. It is universally accepted that the condition that requires thepermit to be clearly displayed at all times means that all relevant details arevisible.

· I didn’t justproduce a permit after the notice was issue, I provided evidence of that thepermit was inside the vehicle at the time the charge was issued.


The genuine pre-estimation of loss set out below refers tocosts that we estimated, at the time of issuing the PCN, may be incurred forthis individual appeal only.

· This seemsto suggest that they estimated a PRE-estimateof loss and the time of issuing, i.e. not a pre-estimate. Therefore the £100 figure written on thesignage is not a pre-estimate.

DVLA Fees / Processing Costs for this appeal. While the DVLAcharge

£2.50 we use a third party supplier to obtain keeper detailson our

behalf and this obviously carries a cost. 5.00

· Below itis stated “With regards to registered keeper details this has not been appliedfor as the complainant has indicated they were driving at the time in theiroriginal appeal to us and they stated they are also the registered keeper ofthe vehicle in their POPLA Appeal”. Therefore there would not be any DVLA fees.

Attendant, administration staff and POPLA Appeals staffwages and salaries

including Employers National Insurance Contributions forthis appeal:

Attendants (PCN recording and issuing) for this appeal 2.60

· The attendantwould be attending to the site regardless of vehicles parked. I don’t understand why I would be footing thebill of the attendants wage if that is his or her job.

Total Genuine Pre-estimation of Loss for this appeal. 101.33

· I wouldlike to see evidence that the above Pre-estimate of loss was compiled BEFOREthe date of the Parking Charge Notice. The above is not a pre-estimate.

The complainant indicated quite clearly in their initialappeal to us that they were the driver and no Notice to Keeper was sent. “…arecent parking charge issued to me, I have paid and am authorised to park.”

· This quoteis not accurate, what I said was “I have paid for a parking permit and MYVEHICLE, reg number xxxxxx is authorised to park where it was.” I said my vehicle was parked, and not that I parkedmy vehicle.

In their initial appeal, the complainant quite categoricallystates that there was not a permit on display and as you will see from our“images” folder there is no Plymouth Science Park permit on display.

· I did notstate there was no permit on display; I said it was not permanently affixed tomy windscreen and explained the reason why.

The complainant has already confirmed in their initialappeal to us that there was not a permit on display in the vehicle at the time.

· Again thisis not true

The complainant has supplied a photograph proving a validparking permit was in place for the vehicle in question at the time. Thephotograph shows the PCN attached to the driver’s window with a permitunderneath.

· This isnot true. The photograph I supplied wasof the Permit and the PCN placed together inside the vehicle with a date andtime stamp. The purpose of this photowas to show that the permit was inside the vehicle at the time the PCN wasissued and that I didn’t rush home and try to recreate the event. I certainly was not “accusing us of somehowentering the vehicle and removing their permit and taking a photograph and thenreplacing the permit”

You will see in our “images” folder a photograph showing thePCN attached to the driver’s window miraculously with no permit showingunderneath it taken over an hour prior to the complainant’s photograph. Sounless the complainant is accusing us of somehow entering the vehicle andremoving their permit and taking a photograph and then replacing the permit, Icannot think how the complainant managed to obtain their photograph.

· That isprobably because you did not look at the photograph properly, as there isclearly no window involved. This shouldnot have taken much time out of the average 2.5 manager hours it took to lookthrough my appeal.

As to the statement that it is unreasonable to display thepermit continuously in the motorist’s absence, if the motorist checks the permitis correctly displayed when leaving their vehicle there is no absolutely noreason for the permit not to be displayed for the duration of their visit.

· Multiple peopleuse this vehicle and may have moved it and re-parked, or opened the door orboot to get an item. A colleague mayhave used my keys to fetch an item and in doing so created an air flow whichunbalanced the permit. There are manyreasons for a permit to slip of a dashboard. Especially one so curved as in the vehicle in question. It is aprecarious position.

bod1467

I'll let others comment on the content. All I'll say is that you send any rebuttal to POPLA. Email should be fine, just make sure to include your POPLA code.