Parking Charge Sent to Leaseholder AND Resident of Estate Parking

enfield_freddy

http://www.popla.org.uk/makinganappeal.htm#submit




If additional evidence arrives shortly before the Assessor is due to consider your case, the matter may have to be adjourned. If it arrives after the decision is made, it will be too late to be considered.




time they started acting to what they write.


get them told

System

Here is the information you need for a permit

http://www.homesforharingey.org/almo/neighbourhood/parking.htm

Seems you may be on a controlled estate and it would be better to get a permit rather than have more tickets issued.

As regards the current ticket, then follow the POPLA route as it is unlikely Wing will be able to show a contract from Haringey that allows them to issue charges in their own name.

Simply asking for a permit will reveal what sort of arrangement is in place so see what they say when you ask.

Parking-Prankster

You can change your appeal and add evidence at any time up to the actual adjudication.

They should have replied withing 28 days, giving you at least 7 days to reply.

Email your update to enquiries@popla.org.uk. with your POPLA code in the subject line. I haven't seen a Wing evidence pack for some time, so if you want specific advice email me your appeal and their evidence pack and I will email you back a rebuttal to send.

prankster@parking-prankster.com

Otherwise, go with hoohoo's post as a starter. I've added some extra comments. Don't miss the deadline. Better to send an imperfect something, than a perfect analysis which missed the deadline.

Eg

1) My lease gives me the right to park, which cannot be overruled by subsequent changes other than those provided of in the lease.

The lease states: "The Tenant shall comply with and be bound by any special regulations made by the Corporation relating to the user of any ... parking lot which shall be published by notice affixed therein ... Anything left therein shall be at the Tenants entire risk. Any such user by the Tenant shall be a matter of collateral arrangement between the parties and shall not be enjoyed as of right other than that conferred by any such arrangement."

No such special regulations made by the Corporation have been published by notice affixed therein.

2) Keeper liability does not apply
The notice to keeper is not compliant with sections 8.2/9.2 of POFA 2012 sch 4.

3) Signage does not form a contract with the driver
4) Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
The operator appears to be stating the charge is for trespass. ParkingEye v Beavis is however, regarding charges for breach of contract. In trespass, any charge can only be brought by the land occupier, which is myself, and must reflect the actual loss to the occupier, which is nil.
5) Operator has no authority to issue tickets

EDickies

Parking-Prankster wrote: »

You can change your appeal and add evidence at any time up to the actual adjudication.

They should have replied withing 28 days, giving you at least 7 days to reply.

Email your update to enquiries@popla.org.uk. with your POPLA code in the subject line. I haven't seen a Wing evidence pack for some time, so if you want specific advice email me your appeal and their evidence pack and I will email you back a rebuttal to send.

prankster@parking-prankster.com

Otherwise, go with hoohoo's post as a starter. I've added some extra comments. Don't miss the deadline. Better to send an imperfect something, than a perfect analysis which missed the deadline.

Eg

1) My lease gives me the right to park, which cannot be overruled by subsequent changes other than those provided of in the lease.

The lease states: "The Tenant shall comply with and be bound by any special regulations made by the Corporation relating to the user of any ... parking lot which shall be published by notice affixed therein ... Anything left therein shall be at the Tenants entire risk. Any such user by the Tenant shall be a matter of collateral arrangement between the parties and shall not be enjoyed as of right other than that conferred by any such arrangement."

No such special regulations made by the Corporation have been published by notice affixed therein.

2) Keeper liability does not apply
The notice to keeper is not compliant with sections 8.2/9.2 of POFA 2012 sch 4.

3) Signage does not form a contract with the driver
4) Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
The operator appears to be stating the charge is for trespass. ParkingEye v Beavis is however, regarding charges for breach of contract. In trespass, any charge can only be brought by the land occupier, which is myself, and must reflect the actual loss to the occupier, which is nil.
5) Operator has no authority to issue tickets

Parking Prankster thank you,

I will email you everything tonight even through I have called POPLA again and they still maintain that I cannot change my appeal.

I will nevertheless email them with the rebuttal you have kindly accepted to draft for me in hope that they will accept it.

ampersand

ED - living in a Fens notspot does not for easy online access make!
[Journeyed to library yesterday but still to no avail]

I am glad it's working this morning and that now you have PP's involvement along with the rest of the mse brigade.
I'd just add, please do not call popla any more. All this achieves is more upset and indignation - both negatives for concentration and mindset.
Remember that popla is in a state of muddle and flux which I see as a possible weapon if things get messed about at Appeal stage.

JUST KEEP SCREEN SHOTS OR CERTIFICATES OF POSTING FOR EVERYTHING YOU SEND.

ED - you are well on your way to defeating these scammers.

When this Popla appeal is reviewed, what will the Lead Adjudicator see?

- from you: a trail of reasonableness, compliance and accuracy.

- from Wing: a deliberately delayed response showing malpractice, failure to comply with legal statute, misrepresentation of Beavis case and Appeal, selective incomprehension, failure to answer valid rebuttal points.

Repeat: you're already well on the way:-)

It is Wing who commit trespass if they ticket your compliantly parked vehicle.

Their scheme to fleece you and/or any other occupants cannot be retrospectively applied :-)

Did you discover if others had received fake invoices like yours?

Take heart and encouragement. Not all who seek help on this Thread absorb and attract the advice and input that has come to you. We go the extra mile for some. That's a compliment:-)

When all this recedes, make sure you spread the message and add PP's blog into your regular reading. There's much more on mse you'll like too, I'm certain. I warrant you'll have good advice to offer on quite a few Threads.

#