POPLA appeal Couple of questions

Fruitcake

bargepole wrote: »

I can't believe people are STILL giving out this misguided and dangerous advice, which is 100% wrong.

In all three Beavis hearings, it was determined that the contractual arrangements between landowner and PPC, are irrelevant to the contract between PPC and motorist, who would not in any case be aware of those arrangements.

Nearly all PPCs pay some kind of bounty to the landowner, usually based on paid tickets. The fact that PE pay an upfront amount at one particular site makes absolutely no difference whatsoever.

My apologies. I have deleted the erroneous information. Please do the same in your post.

Igloo33

Many thanks Fruitcake that typo would have never shown up on a spellcheck !! like the idea of PE trying to pin down a definition for toddler

Umkomaas

Final input from me.

Your Keeper Liability section. You seem just to have regurgitated what I put in as an example of where PE might have failed. Did you actually go through comparing your NtK and the checklist with a fine tooth comb? The two examples I plucked out were random possibilities of non compliance - I can't believe my two randoms were spot on, yet there were no others you could find.

Was your parking incident anything to do with disabled or parent and toddler spaces? If not, why are you making so much of them?

I'm not really sure where you're trying to go with splitting the atom trying to score points between 'parking' as a verb and 'parking' as an adjective. In my view, doesn't help your cause one iota.

The differentiation you need to concentrate on is between 'parking' and 'staying' and how there is quite a difference in time between entry and exit (measured by ANPR) and actual 'parking' - the car physically stopped for a period of time. The time difference between the two can be quite different in a busy car park, or a busy time of year, or where exit from the car park is delayed for example by queuing cars attempting to rejoin the highway, or where there are roadworks causing exit delays.

There is a large block of tiny print at the foot of the ParkingEye signage that so small, ............. reading it.

Needs rephrasing - use of the first person might suggest who was driving.

Good luck - don't miss that POPLA deadline, or you could find yourself off to court.

Guys_Dad

Some bits of this are good. Others will irritate. For example

There are signs that read “Parking limited to two hours.”
Also other signs that read “2hrs Maximum Stay”

The terms ‘stay’ and ‘parking’ do not appear to be clarified or defined on any sign so may, or may or not refer to the same event.
The signs do not rule out the possibility that there are granted “two hours for parking” and an additional “2 hours of stay”


You are having a laugh??? This is not the way to win at a POPLA appeal. It is not a university debating society or the Supreme Court with highly qualified advocates showing off in front of out of this world judges.

Too much in the appeal that, unfortunately, make you look like a smart guy.

Igloo33

Thanks for further comments Umkomaas & Guys dad.

I'm new to this and I guess I'm throwing everything, I can think of, at this, and hoping something sticks,.

Umkomaas - I did my best on NtK but to be honest after staying up all night till 6:15 trying to get this appeal finished - I'm finding it a little hard to concentrate. I'll have another look after the kids are in bed and see if there is anymore.

Guys dad. - PE are trying to stick a contract me which I beleive is grossly unfair. The only information on this 'contract' are the signs that PE have put up.

My thought was, if I can show how flimsy a contract based purely on the minimal wording of their signs, that it would prove that it is unfair and win me POPLA.
There are a lot of appeal documents quoting law stuff so I was under the impression that is the right way to appeal.

If my approach is badly aimed i'd appreaciate how I should target the appeal better. Not really sure even what kind of people look at the appeals at POPLA

Cheers

Guys_Dad

I agree with your approach and wish you luck, but you should be drawing attention to any difference between entry and exit time -v- parking time, if relevant, not quibbling over the definition of parking which looks like you are being over smart and clutching at straws. I would ask you to reconsider this section.

And what has the Parents and Toddlers bit to do with your case? It is 100% irrelevant.

I am also not a fan of overlong appeals. I know that others disagree and we have seen both strategies work on here.

You should strengthen up the "No authority" section. Demand to see who the PPC contract is with. Check that they are the landowner and not a leaseholder. If it is a leaseholder or agent, demand to see the contract with the actual landowner that gives them the right to engage a PPC. You can check the landowner with the council.

Igloo33

Hi All

Just a quick reply to say 'thanks for all your help' !!

I've received an email from POPLA:-

"Parking Eye Ltd have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge."

Have also recieved Confirmation via snail mail from parking eye

Coupon-mad

I'm new to this and I guess I'm throwing everything, I can think of, at this, and hoping something sticks,

That's worked for me for years! Well done, you have proved a long appeal can see them off at POPLA. When it's ParkingEye at POPLA, throw the kitchen sink at it.