Highview Parking Fines Help !!

Umkomaas

Jofarah wrote: »

My question is -
Is a witness statement sufficient in lieu of a contract ?

By not providing evidence do they acceot that they are not pofa and anpr compliant ?
Again thanks for all the advice

POPLA has upheld appeals where the actual contract with the landowner has not been produced. They seem not to attach any weight to a witness statement. So in your rebuttal of the Evidence Pack, you must go to town on the unwillingness of the PPC to produce the contract and you can only draw the conclusion they have no landowner (who may not be Tesco) authority to issue parking charges at this particular site.

In terms of the overall rebuttal plan -

HOW TO REBUT A PPC's EVIDENCE PACK

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

And a further one.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/13uLICVZ13MeT7Q_4qzJUIyAn-jtVJUIVeCaaINpI2U8/mobilebasic

Please note, some of these examples are now a little dated in the context of the fast moving world of private parking, so you need to be careful about blind copying and pasting anything that 'looks good', and especially in the context of Beavis. But they do provide an insight into how to make a start on your rebuttal.

Coupon-mad

Jofarah wrote: »

Hey guys ,
I have received highviews evidence pack ! Its basically
- case summary almost 90% conrised of beavis supreme court.
- pictures of signage and plan
- witness statement from someone at Tesco saying highviews have right to charge tickets.
- no mention of ANPR , POFA

Reiterate the fact that the NTK arrived too late for keeper liability and as Highview have not rebutted nor answered this, nor evidenced who was driving, you cannot be held liable in law as you are merely an appellant registered keeper.

Have a look at the signage pics. Is the amount of the parking charge really PROMINENT? The actual figure?

If not, point that out and state that the driver had no idea and unlike in Beavis, did not know about/accept the charge. Failure to adequately and prominently draw the actual CHARGE to the attention of drivers fails 2(3) of the POFA Schedule 4; and any failure of complying with that law means there can be no keeper liability.

Have a look back at your NTK and rejection letter, back before you did this POPLA appeal. Scour it for any words like 'breach' and 'liquidated damages'. Then quote those sentences to POPLA and tell them that Highview have already said it's an allegation of breach/damages, so they still have to show it's a charge based on a GPEOL. Conversely, n Beavis, PE did not say the charge was a matter of damages.

The two arguments are mutually exclusive and Highview can't jump on the bandwagon of Beavis after saying their charge was in fact a matter of damages for breach - i.e. the opposite argument to that used by Parking Eye in fact. Highview's is the type of 'simple contract' mentioned in the Beavis hearing, whereby GPEOL applies and in the absence of GPEOL, it's a penalty.

Jofarah

Thanks for the advice , i manged to submit it back then . The system is ridiculous though , only allows 2000 characters . Big thanks to parking prankster for providing me with the points

Jofarah

Hey Guys, thanks for all the help !! I won the Popla appeal

Umkomaas

Jofarah wrote: »

Hey Guys, thanks for all the help !! I won the Popla appeal

Any more detail - or is that it?

Coupon-mad

Jofarah wrote: »

Hey Guys, thanks for all the help !! I won the Popla appeal

Nice one! Please quote the decision in the POPLA Decisions thread and link to here, telling the readers of th sticky thread that your win was v Highview.

If the POPLA decision is a block of words, please cut it into paragraphs when showing it in the POPLA Decisions thread so we can read it better.