popla appeal rejected.

chaos_theory

Dear all,


I have just had my popla appeal rejected. No surprise there. However I feel that I'm 100% in the right on this one. And the grounds on which my final appeal was rejected were flawed to say the least. The "relevant" case which the parking operator quoted, and which popla, in their (completely independent) wisdom chose to refer to to in their summing up, bears no relation to the details of my case. It's also of interest that doesn't appear to be any record of the popla decisions in the public domain, yet the parking operator was able to quote the case. Hardly a level playing field. I'm aware that the private parking operators monitor this site, therefore I don't want to reveal my hand in such an accessible arena, however I'd just like a bit of advice before entering the next stage of this tiresome process. Anybody who knows the drill following an unsuccessful pola appeal is welcome to leave their details here.
Thanks

The_Slithy_Tove

You haven't stated what your appeal grounds were, in order to pass judgement about POPLA. If you went with mitigating circumstances, then a loss is inevitable. If you used the tried and trusted grounds available on this site, then chances are much improved.

As to the next steps, all you can do now is ignore the PPC and all their threats. But some PPCs (e.g. Parking Eye, CEL, UKCPS) do make court claims, so be prepared in case they go that far, and don't ignore genuine court papers.

Coupon-mad

It won't have won based on a previous POPLA appeal decision. It will have been won either because you submitted mitigation which cannot be considered (i.e. a wasted POPLA appeal which we'd have helped you win) or this was a PPC which has convinced POPLA in your case that their charge is valid, a loss, etc. The latter is quite rare, almost unheard of in fact.

Either way it makes no odds, you don't have to pay or do anything except collect the letters 'just in case' of court. You do need to tell us which PPC though! Some will sue you and you need to know (one starts with Na, one has the word 'Com bined' and another would be Parking Eye, for example...or UKPCS...).

Coupon-mad

You have no need to hide by sending a pm - Wing are nothing to worry about as they don't sue people.

But this isn't a surprise that you lost; you appealed on the wrong basis for POPLA. You said to me by pm:

Thanks for your prompt response, Coupon Mad,
The PPC was Wing Parking, and the grounds of appeal were that the "contravention" did not take place. At the time my (commercial) vehicle received the parking ticket invoice I was engaged in the activity of loading tools and materials into said commercial vehicle, as is allowed by City of Westminster for a period of "not less than 20 minutes". The invoice was placed on my vehicle after 16 minutes.

Council rules don't apply on private land; you were barking up the wrong tree here and 'contravention did not occur' is Council only.

Wing parking are acting as agents for Citywest homes who are in turn a "franchisee" of City of Westminster, who are the landowner.

Not relevant. It's a private invoice from Wing on private land, not a Council PCN. This was never a penalty charge.

The popla judgement appeared to concur with Wing's assertion that they can do whatever they like once the ink on their contract with Westminster has dried.

Not surprising - as you didn't give POPLA any contract law arguments to go on that would have won for you, such as 'the charge isn't a genuine pre-estimate of loss'. Horrible isn't it, no-one tells you the difference unless you think to Google 'How to win at POPLA' or come here straight away.

The previous case mentioned in the Wing "evidence pack" (which I received, conveniently, long after I'd sent my statements to popla) was no 9261133103 in which it was acknowledged that the operator must give a period of grace in order for the motorist to obtain a permit, but that on that occasion the motorist exceeded this period. Any rational analysis would agree that this case has nothing whatsoever to do with mine. Furthermore the estate on which I was reloading my tools and materials specifically states "permits only" ie there is no mention of pay and display vouchers, which is unsurprising since there are NO pay and display machines anywhere near this location. I've checked. But the popla summing up swallows the wing parking line whole, ie that they can invoke a 15 minute rule for loading/unloading commercial vehicles, without actually having to mention it on their signage.

They can I suppose but it was never a winning POPLA point, you were on to a loser. If you'd come here when you got the evidence we could have helped you to send a decent rebuttal email to POPLA (you can refute the evidence) to turn things around before the decision - but that's too late now.

As you may have gathered, I have no intention of paying these people anything, but I don't want to leave myself open to liability.
Sorry if it's a little lengthy, but having trawled through numerous correspondence on this site, I couldn't find any which were relevant to my case.

Good, you will just get debt collector letters now like everyone used to get before POPLA existed. It's no biggie, a wasted chance to stop the junk mail that's all. I am guessing you also admitted you were driving? Shouldn't have done that either but luckily it's only Wing!

Despite the 'Council involvement' this is NOT a fine and cannot end up with bailiffs, does not affect credit rating or anything. You will now just be in 'ignore the debt collectors' mode as described in post #4 of the Newbies thread. KEEP ALL LETTERS FOR SIX YEARS, JUST IN CASE. Let us know if Wing break the habit of a lifetime and try a small claim over this private invoice (they won't and it would be easy to defend, partly on the basis there was no loss which is what you should have said to POPLA!).