Rejected appeal letter addresses none of my grounds

MrsCheese

I've had an unfair parking ticket from Highview Parking. In my appeal against the invoice I received I stated 4 reasons why I felt the invoice was unfair. The 4 points I used are below in the part marked Full Details. The response I have received is generic and I've typed up the core of their response in Full Details section, but ultimately the generic response doesn't provide any evidence or statements against my 4 points.

So my questions broadly are:
1) As I have no response to what I believe are legitimate reasons for appeal, should this just be an open and shut case for POPLA?
2) When at appeal with POPLA, can Highview submit further evidence? (The hospital is a 50 minute drive each way, so I'd rather not go back to get the evidence if I don't need it for the appeal)
3) If they can provide additional evidence which they haven't sent to me (this seems unfair) and POPLA rule for them (I can't imagine how this could be the case given that there was no parking indiscretion) can I appeal the POPLA decision by submitting further evidence myself at a later date?
4) Any views/ advice out there as to how I am best to proceed?

Thanks for all and any comments!!!

Full Details:
My 4 reasons to appeal

1. Insufficient evidence of any broken rules/ terms of being within the hospital grounds – the notice simply shows the vehicle entering and leaving along with time stamps
2. Insufficient signage indicating a charge, assuming the charge is for being within the grounds for a period – please provide details of all sign locations
3. No evidence of loss/ disproportionate ‘charge’ – There are no details as to how a charge of £40 or £75 is a valid pre-estimate of loss. My understanding of English Law is that any charge is for loss, and thus you have no legal basis to invoice me for an arbitrary ‘fine’ you have decided to set.
4. No evidence that Highview Parking have the permission of the land owner to make such charges on their behalf for the driver being within the estate

The response I have received is generic and just states:
'The PCN was issued legally and correctly according to BPA approved regulations, the fact that you were seemingly unaware of this is not considered a mitigating circumstance for appeal. In light of this , on this occasion your representations have been carefully considered and rejected'

They do go onto say: 'The photos provided confirm that your vehicle was on our clients' private property between the times in question, and images of this nature are accepted as verifiable proof of a vehicle's movements.'

To my mind they have not answered any of the points I raised and haven't provided any evidence; i.e., no evidence they have permission of the landowner, no evidence of where their signs are, no evidence of loss, and their APN photos are just taken going onto and leaving the site (it's a large hospital estate), so no evidence the car was parked or entered an area which requires payment. For example, the driver could have continued to drive around the estate and never parked, or parked in an area which is not covered by pay and display.

Thanks

MrsCheese

Actually, one other question... would I be best just to ignore it on the basis that they haven't responded adequately and if they do choose to take me to court I argue that I've not been sent reasonable evidence to suggest I have parked illegally?

pogofish

Oh come-on!

Do you really expect a PPC to address your appeal properly?

Now you have your POPLA code, have a good read of the Newbies Sticky to see what really works - And your other options to get shot-of them, like a strong complaint to PALS at the hospital concerned.

MrsCheese

:$ Yeah, I did :$

So am I to read this right that the grounds I put up wouldn't cut any ice with POPLA? From my understanding there is no evidence of any offence, just evidence of the time the driver arrived and the time they left.

This is a torrid position, bully boy companies and silly games in defence rather than just plain old truth and reason. I'm tempted to follow the ignore it and let them take me to court approach. I'll read the newbies sticky again, in the mean time any other comments are still welcome.

Thanks for your post.

esmerobbo

This wasn't Halton hospital by any chance was it?

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/incoming/parking-firm-suspended-dvla-over-9660026

The_Deep

I see that no-one has answered the question post 4. Yes, you should appeal to PoPLA, if only to cause them to spend money, and where, using the right legal arguments, and following Pogofish's advice, you will win.

This is not rocket science, but it does require a modicum of research, and effort, do not expect to be spoon fed.

Also, do not expect common-sense and fair play from a PPC, All they want is your money, and they do not care what lies and deceit they use to get it.

hoohoo

Appeal to POPLA.

If you did not identify the driver, then highview ntks are not compliant with POFA, meaning the keeper is not liable, so that would be an extra point of appeal

MrsCheese

Thanks everyone! Sorry, Not had opportunity to log in for a few days, so was very pleasantly surprised to come back to find these. I'll certainly be using the advice from HooHoo, as I get the impression from all I've read that where they aren't complaint on a technicality then they often get thrown out. I assume NTKS is note to keeper (or something similar, but I'll do further research through the signposts you guys have been given). If I really can't find the things you guys refer to I'll pop back. Thanks again.

PS - No it wasn't Halton, it was Warrington.

MrsCheese

I wish it was Halton - not surprised they have been suspended - bunch of bully boys.

MrsCheese

HooHoo. I've read through the notice against this post parkingcowboys.co.uk/keeper-liability/ and I'm just looking to confirm why it is invalid. From what I can see, the letter doesn't state that 'the “creditor” will be entitled to recover the parking charge from the registered keeper.' - It also doesn't really state who the creditor is, but they do name their client and it's a letter from Highview, so I think that would be a stretch to argue that. It also doesn't 'State whether a notice to the driver was given either to the driver or placed on the vehicle and if so to repeat the information in that notice about paying the parking charge and when'

Are these the elements you are referring to? From what I understand the strategy is to wait until they come back again to me to say it's got to be paid and then I reply stating that their letters haven't complied with these rules and thus I am under no liability to tell them who it is.... Have I understood this correctly?

The result of this is that they can still try to take me to court, but they know I'll use this as defence and should win... is that correct?

hoohoo

Private message sent regarding NTK