J-D--P-a-r-k-i-n-g--C-o-n-s-u-l-t-a-n-t-s--PCN

Herzlos

Check all that apply. You don't want to leave "the parking charge notice is not correct" or you risk them implying that you are OK with the figure.

Don't check "Extreme circumstances" - *you* weren't parked. The driver was.

Maybe I'm just too cynical, but the current set-up seems designed to try and get someone to admit to being the driver.

Ignatius1

Herzlos wrote: »

Check all that apply. You don't want to leave "the parking charge notice is not correct" or you risk them implying that you are OK with the figure.

Don't check "Extreme circumstances" - *you* weren't parked. The driver was.

Maybe I'm just too cynical, but the current set-up seems designed to try and get someone to admit to being the driver.

I agree - this new system can be likely to put some RK off. Perhaps it's also designed to favour the corrupt parking industry a little more than the old set-up. Maybe the design of the new set-up is to deter appellants from using templates.


Now, as part of "I was not improperly parked", I've selected "Your permit was clearly displayed" (even though it WASN'T on display, their photograph timestamps are all identical, so how can the credibility of JD Parking Consultants be accepted... this may be something to rebut), "The terms and conditions of the car park were not properly signed", "You were parked in an area in which you were free to park", "You complied with the signage at the car park", "Other".

Maybe I should go back and deselect "I was not improperly parked" because, as you rightfully stated, this seems to be designed so that the appellant (RK) is almost appealing and admitting to be the driver or maybe I should select only "Other" from the "I was not improperly parked" option..... oh, this new system is awful!

Ignatius1

What if I just select "Other" from "Step 1: Grounds for appeal" and only provide in the "Please explain your reasons for appealing against the parking ticket" the headings of my grounds for appeal and select to upload a document which expands and elaborates on my grounds for appeal?

Risky business maybe...

Ignatius1

I decided, pretty much, to follow The Prankster's advice at http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/new-popla-process.html checking "I was not improperly parked", "The amount on the parking charge notice is not correct." & "Other" under "Other grounds for appeal". I selected the "Other" option under the "I was not improperly parked" and "The amount requested on the parking charge notice is not correct." and uploaded my appeal.docx document three times for fun.

I submitted my appeal, however, within the attached appeal document I failed/forgot to include a final sentence along the lines of "with all of this in mind, I require POPLA to instruct the Operator to cancel the parking charge.". I hope that they'll assume that this is my intention :xmastree: I also didn't finish with some closing salutation.

Surely when all is said and done, more is said than done, but none of this will ultimately matter or affect my appeal.

Ignatius1

It was received today - I've uploaded and shared on Dropbox.

Click here for the 'Evidence Pack'.

It seems like it has been put together quite well really.

The "Site Agreement" appears right at the end.

In my view, the "Site Agreement" doesn't constitute authorisation from the landowner. I know who the actual landowner is and they're some leasehold property company based in London. The data that I removed is the name of the property complex I live at with care/of Adair Paxton LLP Property Specialists (http://www.adairpaxton.co.uk/about/ - William Marshall was seemingly the signee).

Right now I can't find anything else to pick out from their evidence pack, but if someone can give me any other ideas for rebuttal, that'd be appreciated.

Click here for the 'Evidence Pack'.

There shouldn't be any problems viewing the 16 page PDF via Dropbox, but if you have any issues (other than any pop up prompting you to sign in or create a Dropbox account (click the little cross(x) if so)), please let me know and I'll upload elsewhere.

Umkomaas

Who is producing this evidence pack? JD Parking (with whom your alleged contract was supposed to be with) or PCS? Needs to be firmly raised as part of your rebuttal. Who are you supposed to be dealing with here?

The bit about the Beavis 'landmark decision' also needs firm attention. It is disingenuous that they have failed to mention the appeal to the Supreme Court. Why have they not appraised POPLA of that major further development in this case?

Ignatius1

Umkomaas wrote: »

Who is producing this evidence pack? JD Parking (with whom your alleged contract was supposed to be with) or PCS? Needs to be firmly raised as part of your rebuttal. Who are you supposed to be dealing with here?

The bit about the Beavis 'landmark decision' also needs firm attention. It is disingenuous that they have failed to mention the appeal to the Supreme Court. Why have they not appraised POPLA of that major further development in this case?

Hmm.... good point - I received the emailed Word document from Ian Goulden, Collections Manager, Debt Recovery Plus Ltd.

For some reason I was under some illusion or impression that the Beavis case had ended.

So, their stating:

"[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]I draw your attention to the landmark decision made by the Court of Appeal in ParkingEye vs Beavis [2015]. Following the judgment made by three senior judges, it was ruled that the parking charge issued in that case "was not extravagant or unconscionable", "held that a motorist who parks his car in the car park does so on the terms displayed in the notices" and was "enforceable under common law" regardless of the claim that no financial loss was suffered as commercial and social losses must be taken into account.[/FONT][/FONT]






[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]In the case of the present parking charge, the amount cannot be said to extravagant or unconscionable given the full amount is only £100.00 (the amount in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] was £85.00)."[/FONT][/FONT]

is false, is it not?

Landmark decision made by the Court of Appeal in ParkingEye vs Beavis [2015]? A judgement made by three senior judges?

Didn't the Court of Appeal grant permission to appeal at the Supreme Court?

Herzlos

It's no false, per say, but it's missing the whole story. Whilst that was the outcome, Beavis was given leave to appeal and did, we're expecting the results this month. As such, the current outcome can't be taken as gospel.

Ignatius1

Umkomaas wrote: »

Who is producing this evidence pack? JD Parking (with whom your alleged contract was supposed to be with) or PCS? Needs to be firmly raised as part of your rebuttal. Who are you supposed to be dealing with here?

Perhaps a POPLA Assessor would conclude that PCS or DRP simply produced the evidence pack on behalf of JD Parking.


Of course, JD Parking's signs do state that "PARKING ENFORCEMENT ON THIS LAND IS MANAGED BY JDPARKING CONSULTANTS" and "PAYMENTS/APPEALS PARKING COLLECTIONS SERVICES".


Who drew the contract? JD Parking, surely.. One would have expected the evidence pack to come from a JD Parking email address, but all appeal matters seem to be handled by PCS/DRP.


I'm not sure how best to firmly raise these in the rebuttal.


Who formed the "site agreement"? According to the site agreement at the end of the evidence pack it is between JD Parking and the apartment complex concierge management company people (who also live here) C/O Adair Paxton LLP Property Specialists. None of them, by the way, are the actual landowners, but the October 2015 - Version 6 BPA CoP states under 7.1:
"If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges."

I'm sure the bits in red are new to the Code. Maybe it's now a little trickier to win on the landowner ground for appeal.


Scrub that... February 2014 - Version 4 of the Code also states (or their appointed agent)

Ignatius1

To me this does appear to comply with Section 7 of the CoP. What do you think?


We know that many appeals are allowed based on not having written authorisation from the landowner etc. Adair Paxton must be the "appointed agent".


I can't see how I can rebut the "site agreement".