Appealing against Nappy-er

Herzlos

Edit out the registration information on here - it'll be easy enough to identify you from.

Good luck on the appeal

ItsJustCurtis

Cheers, should have thought of that

ItsJustCurtis

Its taken long enough, but I've finally had some movement. Napler have submitted their 'evidence' to POPLA and CC'd me in on the email. 46 pages of largely drivel, including both the Yau and Lander court cases, which I called them out for in the initial appeal and a breakdown of their 'genuine' pre-estimate of loss, which interestingly includes the 3 hours @£25p/h required to address the appeal, a cost which wouldn't exist without the appeal and hence shouldn't be considered as part of a parking charge surely! They even concede that part of the document doesn't actually apply to the parking in question, but they, paraphrasing here, couldn't be arsed to re-write it to make it relevant.

I guess I just wait for POPLA's decision or is there anything else I can do at this stage?

Umkomaas

You need to rebut the GPEOL as an absolute minimum. If you don't it can be construed you don't disagree. They've won before at POPLA using that GPEOL (previous ones have included reference a £2k legal cost element of the GPEOL calculation, which POPLA has swallowed).

You need to do your very best at this stage to get this killed off at POPLA, otherwise you're likely in for ongoing hassle from the PPC and/or their debt collectors.

ItsJustCurtis

How do I go about that then? Just reply to the email sent to me cc'ing POPLA or will POPLA come back to me?

Umkomaas

ItsJustCurtis wrote: »

How do I go about that then? Just reply to the email sent to me cc'ing POPLA or will POPLA come back to me?

POPLA won't come back to you. The assessment is imminent so you can't hang around on this.

Here's an excellent example of how one poster dealt effectively and comprehensively with a PPC's Evidence Pack. I'm sure this will give you plenty of ideas on how to handle your case.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/67385911#Comment_67385911

And another one to consider.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=67402366&postcount=26

ItsJustCurtis

Excellent, thanks

ItsJustCurtis

Having read this Evidence Pack provided by Napier, there are a number of points that I would like to question and/or rebut:

1)
Napier Parking ltd. State themselves on page 6 that Napier do not receive any of the costs associated with either the rental of residents or visitors bays. It stands to reason that any potential losses incurred through mis-use of these bays are not Napiers to claim.

2)
The Terms and Conditions of parking found in Appendix 1 ironically demonstrate quite clearly how unclear the T&C’s are. Even printed on A3 sized paper the text is far too small to be read legibly at close range, let alone on a lamp post placed at the single lane entrance.
Appendix 8 re-enforces this point; A photograph taken on foot, much closer than one would be when driving through in a vehicle further demonstrates how it is extremely difficult, if not impossible to read the Terms in their entirety upon entry to the car park. Upon further investigation, I have found images taken from October 2012 and August 2014 which show the Terms and Conditions as being removed between these 2 dates. It is not clear in the Evidence pack provided by Napier when this image was taken, thus I believe it is safe to assume that the T&C’s were not present at all on the date of the drivers alleged offence, thus the grounds of a Contract do not exist as stated in previous correspondence.

3)
The business model and genuine pre-estimate of loss provided by Napier does little to justify the charges requested by them. They begin by making out appellants are little more than anarchists attempting to undermine the work of such businesses, this is simply not the case. “Taking no action against drivers in breach of the terms and conditions of parking” and acknowledging reasonable grounds of appeal are two completely different things.
The Capital Costs provided by Napier are standard business costs and would exist if there was a breach of parking or not. Business costs are not losses and should not be passed onto the appellant as part of the Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss. In addition to business costs, Mr de Savary claims that another portion of the GPEOL is the cost of his time at £25p/h for 3 hours dedicated to the appeals process. Given that he has stated this is a cost incurred only at appeals stage it stands to reason that this is not a loss incurred at the time of the alleged offence, thus not applicable to the initial £95 charge.

4)
Mr de Savary states himself that the costs given may not be relevant to the car park in question and in turn may not be relevant to the case, and that it is not worth calculating the actual values for that car park. Given that the entire case is based on these ‘losses,’ I would say it is irresponsible for him to make the assumption that the costs given are relevant to this car park, and representative of the ‘losses’ he is trying to claim back.

5)
Related to points 1 and 4, the Contractual basis of parking evidence given on page 28 states that the measure of Napier’s damage is the loss of its revenue plus the cost of recovering that sum; As noted in point one, Napier made no loss of revenue given they do not receive the costs associated with the tickets displayed. The cost of recovering that sum would include only the costs involved recovering it as a standard procedure, this would come to the sum of the DVLA Records check, given by them as £2.50 + 0.60p administration fee, as well as the cost of postage for the NTK, sent by second class stamp, this will be 0.62p. Any further costs incurred are as a result of the appeal and cannot be included as part of the initial Fixed Charge Notice.

6)
The cases referencesd with Yau and Lander were acknowledged in my initial POPLA appeal, including the reasons why they are irrelevant in this case, I shall not waste time going into detail again.

A final point, Napier claim that I have not offered any satisfactory explanation for why it is acceptable to park without complying with the T&C’s of parking. I feel that whatever the circumstances may have been for the driver, it would be pure mitigation, and I believe that mitigating circumstances are not considered during the appeals process, and thus have not been included. However if we are calling one another out on such circumstances, I would take this opportunity to state a number of residents in the area have noted the Parking attendants representing Napier acting in breach of the law, their own parking contracts and common sense. On multiple occasions they have apparently been spotted using a mobile phone whilst operating the vehicle, they have parked across double yellow lines and on occasion public footpaths, and leaving PCN’s in the swept area of the windscreen, leaving adhesive residue obscuring the window directly in front of the driver, clearly seen in the photographs attached to Napiers evidence pack. As I say though, this is mitigation and not considered as part of the case and I appreciate that you will only consider the rebuttals I have listed above as part of my appeal.

I thank you for taking the time to consider both sides of this appeal, and I trust you will come to a fair decision.

Regards

Sound good?

bod1467

Most excellent and bodacious.

Umkomaas

Good work. Send it off and see how it goes. Can't do much else now.