Company car - advice is to appeal early, but how early?

frankietwospots

For ref, here's the latest email from POPLA. Absolutely no explanation as to why what I'm seeing on the portal is different to what they're seeing and no mention of the landowner contract issue. Also no explanation of the nature of the 'error' they have made. Disgraceful.

Email from POPLA...

Thank you for your email received on 21 March 2016.

We contacted you by email on 16 March to advise you that an error had been made when assessing your appeal. We advised you that due to this error, we would be re-assessing the appeal.

Your appeal has been refused. This means you will need to pay the Parking Charge Notice in full.

As you are unable to view the rationale behind the decision on the portal, I have arranged for a paper copy of the decision to sent to you by post. Please be mindful that this could take a few days to arrive.

I appreciate this is not the outcome you were hoping for, however this decision is final and there is no further opportunity to appeal.

Kind regards,

Emily Chriscoli
POPLA Team

bod1467

This means you will need to pay the Parking Charge Notice in full.

They really said that? Wow!

Redx

Lies, you dont have to pay unless a judge ordered it, in small claims court

looks like you may need to complain to Nicola Mullaney at the ISPA when you have all the facts and paperwork

Coupon-mad

Same circumstances as here, maybe compare notes on your complaints by pm:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5430249

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5383551

HTH

frankietwospots

I've now received the hard copy of POPLA's decision - see below.

Thank you for your patience while we considered the information provided for your Appeal. We have now reached the end of the Appeal process and have come to a decision. The decision is final and there is no further option for Appeal.

The Operator issued parking charge notice XXXX arising out of the presence of a vehicle with registration mark XXXX XXX.
The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.
The Assessor has considered the evidence provided by both parties and has determined that the Appeal be refused.

In order to avoid further action by the Operator, payment of the parking charge should be made within 14 days.

Reasons for the Assessor’s determination:

The appellant states that a valid ticket was purchased for the duration of that the car was parked. The Appellant states that there is inadequate signage.

The operator states that it issued the Parking Charge Notice on the basis that the driver failed to display a valid ticket.
Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice explains that signs ‘must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand’. The operator has provided photographic evidence of multiple signs that are situated throughout the car park. The signs clearly state the terms and conditions set out by the operator including the line ‘vehicles need to display clearly a valid ticket’.

Furthermore, it has shown us an image of the appellant’s vehicle and we cannot see any sign of the ticket in the windscreen or on the dashboard.

When looking at appeals, POPLA considers whether a parking contract was formed and, if so, whether the motorist kept to the conditions of the contract. On this occasion, the appellant parked her vehicle and failed to clearly display a valid ticket.

As such, I can only conclude that the appellant failed to meet the terms and conditions at the location. Therefore I am satisfied that the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly.
Accordingly, the Appeal is refused.

Yours sincerely,

James Beaton

There is SO MUCH wrong with this!

1) The hard copy does not match what I viewed on the POPLA portal in ANY WAY. I'd like POPLA to explain why there are seemingly two decisions on my appeal. I'd call their processes into question here.

2) The hard copy version I've posted here seems so lacking in legal underpinning and rationale that I'm led to speculate that one of POPLA's new, untrained assessors was put on the case.

3) POPLA say that they have considered all the evidence provided by both parties. They have ignored the fact that I stated that the ticket was blown off the dashboard by wind on an extremely windy day.

4) Crucially, they have also ignored the fact that no contract was provided by the Operator, so how exactly did I enter into a contract with them as POPLA seem to imply? There is no acknowledgement of this section of my rebuttal:

No copy of a contract with the landowner has been produced in the evidence park. The Operator has provided no evidence to counter my claim that they had no authority to operate at this site. It is reasonable to infer, therefore, that the Operator's silence indicates that there was no such authority. To reiterate, Kernow Parking Solutions do not ‘exist’ in the sense that there is no identified legal entity which would be a registered company or an identified sole trader. Kernow Parking Solutions are the latter but fail to identify on their signage and the PCN that was issued, who that sole trader is. Therefore they cannot claim to have entered into a contract with the Keeper.

5) How dare they tell me that I have 14 days to pay the fine when even the operator tell me I have 28 days!

6) No mention is made of the Operator's failure to provide sufficient evidence to justify the £100 loss the landowner might have incurred. No breakdown of the costs KPS incurred as a result of the car being parked at the car park has been provided.

I will definitely be taking this further and if anyone has any comments or observations to add, I would be grateful to hear them.

Redx

bear in mind there are 2 contracts being debated here

there is the first contract between the landowner or MA and the entitity known as KPS , this is locus standii , (or not if its not valid , or has expired , or was never agreed or signed for) - this is one of your main appeal points, no locus standii

then there is the second contract that you entered into when the vehicle was parked on the car park, plus the subsequent sub-contract of the paid for ticket the driver bought that entitled the vehicle to remain for the parking period

these are 2 separate issues, although popla may or may not have worded it correctly, but you need to understand the difference between them

there is then the issue of it being displayed according to the rules on the signage and possibly on the paid for ticket itself, which appears to have failed due to it being blown off due to the weather , this does seem to indicate that the rules were not followed, even if it was a "minor issue" to you

the fact remains that no loss occurred as the parking period was paid for , so nothing like Beavis

whether popla say it needs paying in a timeframe or not, its simply advice , not a ruling , you are not bound by the popla decision, never mind what they say the payment time to the operator may be, which could vary and is betwewen you and the operator

ie:- its advice only, it may not be factually correct , so maybe they should say "to avoid further proceedings please pay the operator in the time allowed by your operator" - its not worth worrying over as there are bigger fish to fry , so dont get bogged down by this aspect which is irrelevant to the main case

Coupon-mad

The appellant states that a valid ticket was purchased for the duration of that the car was parked. The Appellant states that there is inadequate signage.

Why is he saying those were your only two appeal points? Why has he ignored the question of no landowner authority (that should be your main complaint if it was in your first appeal to POPLA).

frankietwospots

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Why is he saying those were your only two appeal points? Why has he ignored the question of no landowner authority (that should be your main complaint if it was in your first appeal to POPLA).

Exactly! And yet in the version of the appeal decision that I can see on the portal, I win on this point. So how did that suddenly become this very basic and poorly argued refusal?

I shall be making a complaint.

Edna_Basher

Exactly, indeed.

Having already allowed your appeal in the first instance - on the basis of no evidence of landowner authority - POPLA are making a real dog's dinner of avoiding properly explaining their U-turn.

At the moment, there seems to be no effective leadership within POPLA, with no named Lead Adjudicator coming forward to sort out the mess.

I think it's time for you to submit a formal complaint to Nicola Mullany, Chair, ISPA - nicola.mullany@ispa.co.uk. She will then arrange for one of ISPA's assessors to investigate your complaint.

Make sure you get to the front of the queue - I think ISPA's assessors will be very busy in the next few weeks.

frankietwospots

Edna_Basher wrote: »

Exactly, indeed.

Having already allowed your appeal in the first instance - on the basis of no evidence of landowner authority - POPLA are making a real dog's dinner of avoiding properly explaining their U-turn.

At the moment, there seems to be no effective leadership within POPLA, with no named Lead Adjudicator coming forward to sort out the mess.

I think it's time for you to submit a formal complaint to Nicola Mullany, Chair, ISPA - nicola.mullany@ispa.co.uk. She will then arrange for one of ISPA's assessors to investigate your complaint.

Make sure you get to the front of the queue - I think ISPA's assessors will be very busy in the next few weeks.

Thanks - I'll get onto it tomorrow.