F1rst Parking Lancaster University

clarkcj

really appreciate your response, I'll give this a go and let you know!

clarkcj

So they have replied and 'independently' sent me an evidence pack. Should I make any comments on the popla appeal thing? What kind of things should I say?
Cheers boys and girls.

Umkomaas

clarkcj wrote: »

So they have replied and 'independently' sent me an evidence pack. Should I make any comments on the popla appeal thing? What kind of things should I say?
Cheers boys and girls.

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 blindly 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

clarkcj wrote: »

So they have replied and 'independently' sent me an evidence pack. Should I make any comments on the popla appeal thing? What kind of things should I say?
Cheers boys and girls.

Definitely.

Look at signage - does it state the amount if the charge in large lettering? Not hidden in the small print.

Look at the landowner authority, if provided. If not then point out the omission.

Point out again the NTK omission if this was a windscreen PCN subsequently appealed only by the registered keeper, with no driver involvement.

Look at the evidence such as pics of the dashboard, are they conclusive?

Look at their GPEOL argument or mention of 'PE v Beavis' they might have used to justify the 'penalty', most cases are NOT like that one in fact, and can be distinguished. I use the word penalty deliberately because in Beavis it was stated that the penalty rule was engaged (i.e. relevant) BUT the Judges (except for one) found that under those circs, PE had managed to 'disengage' it.

So your job - with our help - is to remind POPLA of the fact the penalty rule is certainly 'engaged' in parking charge cases (as was clearly stated in Beavis) and show how F1rst have failed to disengage it.

clarkcj

Just so everybody knows.
I won on the grounds that no NTK was issued, no other reason was necessary as that was sufficient. Good luck if any of you have a similar problem!

Coupon-mad

Exactly as expected and a grounds of appeal POPLA can't slip up on. Thanks for the update, good news!