We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
POPLA first attempt
Options
Legacy_user
Posts: 0 Newbie
I am struggling to put together my appeal for POPLA. Having looked at some appeals which didn't quite seem to reflect my situation and from reading around I have made this first attempt. I have cut out references from the suggestions which either: a. I didn't understand the relevance of, or b. seemed to me erroneous to my case. Reading the transcript of Beavis, and the Judge's comments I have trepidation in sending in any appeal! Please would friends have a look at my effort and send me constructive comments? Thanks
POPLA Ref: xxxxxxx
BETWEEN:
ParkingEye Ltd (Claimant)
vs
xxxxx (Defendant)
___________________________________________________________________________
I am xxxxx of xxxxxx, defendant in this matter.
The claim is denied in its entirety except where explicitly admitted here. I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons, any one of which is fatal to the Claimant's case.
A. The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 applies
B. The signage does not offer a contract with the motorist
C. The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 applies
D. The Claimant has no standing to bring a case
E. The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and is therefore an unenforceable penalty
The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence. In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken have never been provided. As the claimant has not provided this information, signage details have been inferred from Googlemap photographs and the details may not be correct. Minor variants in text may occur. All references to signage therefore, are subject to change once the full particulars of claim have been provided.
On the day of the alleged event, it was raining and signage was not conspicuous. With no ticketing or board displaying hour rates the car park appeared to be free and unrestricted, Throughout the time in question shops were visited and food and drink consumed , whilst wewaited for contact from the vet about surgery being performed on our dog. There was no intentional overstay of limited parking times.
A. The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 applies
1. It is asserted that the Claimant’s charges are unlawful, as they are in breach of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999, specifically regulation 8(1) of the Regulations and article 6(1) of the Unfair Terms Directive (in providing that an unfair term is not to be binding on the consumer), which is to redress the imbalance between the contracting parties’ bargaining power, and to re-establish equality between them, so that the contract terms which bind the parties are such as the parties would have agreed if they had negotiated the contract on equal terms.
2. The European Court of Justice case of Aziz v Caixa d’Estalvis de Catalunya, Tarragona I Manresa [2013] 3 CMLR 5 provides authority for this, and it is submitted that European Court of Justice decisions must be taken judicial notice of by lower courts in England and Wales. The test for unfairness and imbalance in that case is as follows (para 77);
Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that:
– the concept of ‘significant imbalance’ to the detriment of the consumer must be assessed in the light of an analysis of the rules of national law applicable in the absence of any agreement between the parties, in order to determine whether, and if so to what extent, the contract places the consumer in a less favourable legal situation than that provided for by the national law in force. To that end, an assessment of the legal situation of that consumer having regard to the means at his disposal, under national law, to prevent continued use of unfair terms, should also be carried out;
– in order to assess whether the imbalance arises ‘contrary to the requirement of good faith’, it must be determined whether the seller or supplier, dealing fairly and equitably with the consumer, could reasonably assume that the consumer would have agreed to the term concerned in individual contract negotiations.
3. It is asserted that no reasonable person, of whatever means, would willingly agree to pay a charge of £100 as a consequence of staying over free time, if they had the opportunity to negotiate the contract on equal terms with the other contracting party.
4. It is asserted that any competent solicitor would have negotiated the charge to be equal to a genuine pre-estimate of loss, being the normal legal situation provided for by the national law in force. ParkingEye’s charges in the original hearing were asserted to be an average of around £18 per ticket issued.
5. The Claimant relies on the Court of Appeal judgment in the case of ParkingEye v Beavis. However, in that case the court applied the wrong test for imbalance (para 34 and also para 37, 38)
The judge […] held that the term did not cause a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations because the charge was no greater than that which a motorist could expect to pay for overstaying in a municipal car park.
6. It is submitted that the European Court of Justice definition of imbalance must take precedence.
7. However, in any case the instant case is not saved from being unfair by Beavis. Locally no council car parking exists to compare with this area is well outside the city centre and parking is not at a premium; Parking Eye submits it fair to set an overstay charge at £100 discounted to £60. As the charge is 100% greater than that which a motorist could expect to pay for overstaying in a municipal car park there is a clear imbalance.
8. Regulation 7 of Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 may also apply depending on the words of the signage.
B. The signage does not offer a contract with the motorist
9. The claim is for breach of contract. However, it is denied any contract existed.
10. The Claimant states, in their Particulars of Claim, that the signage is ‘clearly displayed’ but this is not agreed. Thus, the necessary elements of offer and acceptance to form a contract were not present. Although the Claimant has not provided a signage map in many of their car parks signs are positioned in such a way as to create ‘entrapment zones’ where signage is not clearly visible. The Claimant is put strictly to proof that this is not the case on this site.
11. The elements of offer, acceptance and consideration both ways have therefore not been satisfied and so no contract can exist.
C. The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 applies
12. Any alleged contract would be a distance contract for services as defined in The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013.
13. The regulations define three types of contracts; distance contracts, on premises contract and off-premises contracts.
14. The definitions concern themselves with how a contract is concluded (and in particular if face to face contact occurs during this process) and not where the contract is eventually performed. Thus, if a consumer books a hair styling appointment over the web, that is a distance contract even though they go to the salon for the actual styling. If they re-book at the salon, that will be an on-premises contract. If they meet their stylist in Tesco, arrange for an appointment and immediately phone the salon to confirm, that will be an off-premises contract. All these contracts are performed on-premises, but concluded in different ways.
15. The regulations define an on-premises contract as:
“on-premises contract” means a contract between a trader and a consumer which is neither a distance contract nor an off-premises contract;
16. Thus a contract cannot be on-premises if it is a distance contract. The regulations define a distance contract as:
“distance contract” means a contract concluded between a trader and a consumer under an organised distance sales or service-provision scheme without the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer, with the exclusive use of one or more means of distance communication up to and including the time at which the contract is concluded;
17. This is clearly an organised service-provision scheme (for parking)
The contract is clearly concluded without the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer.
There is clearly the exclusive use of one means of distance communication (signage) up to and including the time at which the contract is concluded.
18. This is therefore a distance contract.
19. None of the exemptions in regulation (6) apply. No vending machine or automated premises was used to conclude the contract. Any contract would be concluded by parking and walking away.
20. Regulation 13 lists information to be provided before making a distance contract. The contract fails to provide the required information listed in Schedule 2 or a means to have a copy of the contract on a durable medium. Accordingly, 13.1 states the contract is not binding on the consumer.
D. The Claimant has no standing to bring a case
21. The claim form states that the land is ‘managed by ParkingEye’. They are therefore acting as agents of the landowner.
22. The Claimant’s has not provided copies of the alleged contract in the letter before claim or particulars of claim. However it is believe the signage contains further clauses which show that the Claimant is acting as an agent of the landowner, not the principal, which are identical or similar to the following; ‘ParkingEye is authorised by the landowner to operate this private car park for and on its behalf’ and ‘Parking is at the absolute discretion of the Landowner’.
23. Any consideration to the motorist of a grant of parking space flows from the landowner; the signage is believed to have a clause identical to or similar to, ‘Parking is at the absolute discretion of the Landowner’. There is no consideration from the motorist as parking is free.
24. Although each case turns on its own facts, in all cases where ParkingEye’s contract with the landowner has been fully disclosed, the charge for breach of contract is collected by ParkingEye on behalf of the landowner. This is usually disclosed in paragraph 3.11. This further confirms ParkingEye act as agent for the landowner.
25. ParkingEye provide the landowner with a web interface where they can check parking charges issued and paid. This is usually disclosed in paragraph 8 of their contract with the landowner. It is further disclosed on their web site. Thus, ParkingEye is acting as an agent of the landowner.
26.If ParkingEye deny acting as an agent then they are put to strict proof
by disclosing the appropriate parts of their contact (usually clauses 3.11
and 8) with the landowner.
27. Fairlie v Fenton establishes the situation regarding agency.
a. If the agent is acting on behalf of an undisclosed principal, they can sue and be sued
b. If the agent is acting on behalf of a named principal, they cannot sue
c. If the agent is acting on behalf of a principal whose name is not disclosed, then they can only sue if they assume the risk; in other words, if they can be sued if they fail to uphold their part of the bargain.
28. This case is clearly (c). The signage states ParkingEye are acting on
behalf of the landowner, but does not state who the landowner is. The
small print in the signage has a clause similar to ‘ParkingEye do not
assume the risk if problems occur; in these cases it is the landowner
who would be liable. We are not responsible for the car park surface,
other motor vehicles, damage or loss to or from motor vehicles or
general site safely.’
29. ParkingEye therefore have no standing to bring this case. Only the
landowner has the right to do this.
30. In ParkingEye v Beavis, clauses 3.11 and 8 were redacted from the
contract given to the judges. Therefore any judgment would not have
been able to take these clauses into account.
E.The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and is therefore an
unenforceable penalty
31. The claim is for breach of contract. In such cases, it is trite law that any
charge is intended to put the recipient back in the position they were
had the breach not occurred. If the charge is larger, as in this case, then
it is a penalty and the whole charge is unenforceable.
32. As previously explained, the parking charge amount is due to the
landowner, not the claimant. The Claimant collects it on the landowner’s
behalf. The Claimant has suffered no actual, or genuine pre-estimate of,
loss as a result of any alleged overstay. There is no initial loss to the
Claimant, and they have no standing to bring any case.
33.In any case, all costs are due to the cost of enforcement, which was
established in ParkingEye v Beavis to be an average of around £18 per
ticket issued. These can therefore be mitigated by taking no action. The
charge of £100 is primarily intended as a deterrent. It is, therefore, an
unenforceable penalty.
34.The charge for breach of contract is collected on behalf of the
landowner, according to clause 3.11 of the landowner contract. However,
all costs for issuing tickets are borne by ParkingEye. The landowner
therefore suffers no loss at all. This bizarre business arrangement means that
there is no cause of action.
35.The Claimant may rely on the ruling of ParkingEye v Beavis, held in the
court of appeal in February 2015 and since then in the Supreme Court.
However each case must turn on its own fact and the facts of that case
are different to this.
36.The Court of Appeal ruled that is a charge was not a genuine pre-estimate
of loss it could nevertheless be saved as a penalty if (i) there was social
justification, and (ii) the charge was no more than needed to deter, which
was established by comparison with council charges at that site.
37.The social justification was because the car park was in a town centre
near to a railway station and so might be abused by commuters who
stayed all day. Additionally it was alleged that retailers would suffer if
motorists stayed longer than allowed, and other motorists would not be
able to find a space when they wanted to shop. ParkingEye have not
established any social justification in this particular case.
38. .In this case equivalent council fines are £25 rising to £50 after 14 days. In
comparison to this the sum demanded is clearly far more than that needed
to deter, far more than genuine losses, and is therefore disproportionate.
39. Additionally the sum is roughly equivalent to a week’s state pension or a
day and a half take home pay at average earnings. It is therefore a huge
sum, completely disproportionate to the costs involved in any overstay.
Additionally
40. ParkingEye are known to attempt to discredit defences by claiming they come from online forums. Although there is nothing wrong with using online forums, and most legal professionals use the internet for research, I confirm that my defence has been individually researched although legal arguments have been garnered from online resources.
41. In any case, ParkingEye cases all explore the same few areas of law and it is therefore not surprising that as ParkingEye file an estimated 50,000 claims a year that many defences will be similar in nature.
POPLA Ref: xxxxxxx
BETWEEN:
ParkingEye Ltd (Claimant)
vs
xxxxx (Defendant)
___________________________________________________________________________
I am xxxxx of xxxxxx, defendant in this matter.
The claim is denied in its entirety except where explicitly admitted here. I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons, any one of which is fatal to the Claimant's case.
A. The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 applies
B. The signage does not offer a contract with the motorist
C. The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 applies
D. The Claimant has no standing to bring a case
E. The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and is therefore an unenforceable penalty
The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence. In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken have never been provided. As the claimant has not provided this information, signage details have been inferred from Googlemap photographs and the details may not be correct. Minor variants in text may occur. All references to signage therefore, are subject to change once the full particulars of claim have been provided.
On the day of the alleged event, it was raining and signage was not conspicuous. With no ticketing or board displaying hour rates the car park appeared to be free and unrestricted, Throughout the time in question shops were visited and food and drink consumed , whilst wewaited for contact from the vet about surgery being performed on our dog. There was no intentional overstay of limited parking times.
A. The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 applies
1. It is asserted that the Claimant’s charges are unlawful, as they are in breach of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999, specifically regulation 8(1) of the Regulations and article 6(1) of the Unfair Terms Directive (in providing that an unfair term is not to be binding on the consumer), which is to redress the imbalance between the contracting parties’ bargaining power, and to re-establish equality between them, so that the contract terms which bind the parties are such as the parties would have agreed if they had negotiated the contract on equal terms.
2. The European Court of Justice case of Aziz v Caixa d’Estalvis de Catalunya, Tarragona I Manresa [2013] 3 CMLR 5 provides authority for this, and it is submitted that European Court of Justice decisions must be taken judicial notice of by lower courts in England and Wales. The test for unfairness and imbalance in that case is as follows (para 77);
Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that:
– the concept of ‘significant imbalance’ to the detriment of the consumer must be assessed in the light of an analysis of the rules of national law applicable in the absence of any agreement between the parties, in order to determine whether, and if so to what extent, the contract places the consumer in a less favourable legal situation than that provided for by the national law in force. To that end, an assessment of the legal situation of that consumer having regard to the means at his disposal, under national law, to prevent continued use of unfair terms, should also be carried out;
– in order to assess whether the imbalance arises ‘contrary to the requirement of good faith’, it must be determined whether the seller or supplier, dealing fairly and equitably with the consumer, could reasonably assume that the consumer would have agreed to the term concerned in individual contract negotiations.
3. It is asserted that no reasonable person, of whatever means, would willingly agree to pay a charge of £100 as a consequence of staying over free time, if they had the opportunity to negotiate the contract on equal terms with the other contracting party.
4. It is asserted that any competent solicitor would have negotiated the charge to be equal to a genuine pre-estimate of loss, being the normal legal situation provided for by the national law in force. ParkingEye’s charges in the original hearing were asserted to be an average of around £18 per ticket issued.
5. The Claimant relies on the Court of Appeal judgment in the case of ParkingEye v Beavis. However, in that case the court applied the wrong test for imbalance (para 34 and also para 37, 38)
The judge […] held that the term did not cause a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations because the charge was no greater than that which a motorist could expect to pay for overstaying in a municipal car park.
6. It is submitted that the European Court of Justice definition of imbalance must take precedence.
7. However, in any case the instant case is not saved from being unfair by Beavis. Locally no council car parking exists to compare with this area is well outside the city centre and parking is not at a premium; Parking Eye submits it fair to set an overstay charge at £100 discounted to £60. As the charge is 100% greater than that which a motorist could expect to pay for overstaying in a municipal car park there is a clear imbalance.
8. Regulation 7 of Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 may also apply depending on the words of the signage.
B. The signage does not offer a contract with the motorist
9. The claim is for breach of contract. However, it is denied any contract existed.
10. The Claimant states, in their Particulars of Claim, that the signage is ‘clearly displayed’ but this is not agreed. Thus, the necessary elements of offer and acceptance to form a contract were not present. Although the Claimant has not provided a signage map in many of their car parks signs are positioned in such a way as to create ‘entrapment zones’ where signage is not clearly visible. The Claimant is put strictly to proof that this is not the case on this site.
11. The elements of offer, acceptance and consideration both ways have therefore not been satisfied and so no contract can exist.
C. The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 applies
12. Any alleged contract would be a distance contract for services as defined in The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013.
13. The regulations define three types of contracts; distance contracts, on premises contract and off-premises contracts.
14. The definitions concern themselves with how a contract is concluded (and in particular if face to face contact occurs during this process) and not where the contract is eventually performed. Thus, if a consumer books a hair styling appointment over the web, that is a distance contract even though they go to the salon for the actual styling. If they re-book at the salon, that will be an on-premises contract. If they meet their stylist in Tesco, arrange for an appointment and immediately phone the salon to confirm, that will be an off-premises contract. All these contracts are performed on-premises, but concluded in different ways.
15. The regulations define an on-premises contract as:
“on-premises contract” means a contract between a trader and a consumer which is neither a distance contract nor an off-premises contract;
16. Thus a contract cannot be on-premises if it is a distance contract. The regulations define a distance contract as:
“distance contract” means a contract concluded between a trader and a consumer under an organised distance sales or service-provision scheme without the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer, with the exclusive use of one or more means of distance communication up to and including the time at which the contract is concluded;
17. This is clearly an organised service-provision scheme (for parking)
The contract is clearly concluded without the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer.
There is clearly the exclusive use of one means of distance communication (signage) up to and including the time at which the contract is concluded.
18. This is therefore a distance contract.
19. None of the exemptions in regulation (6) apply. No vending machine or automated premises was used to conclude the contract. Any contract would be concluded by parking and walking away.
20. Regulation 13 lists information to be provided before making a distance contract. The contract fails to provide the required information listed in Schedule 2 or a means to have a copy of the contract on a durable medium. Accordingly, 13.1 states the contract is not binding on the consumer.
D. The Claimant has no standing to bring a case
21. The claim form states that the land is ‘managed by ParkingEye’. They are therefore acting as agents of the landowner.
22. The Claimant’s has not provided copies of the alleged contract in the letter before claim or particulars of claim. However it is believe the signage contains further clauses which show that the Claimant is acting as an agent of the landowner, not the principal, which are identical or similar to the following; ‘ParkingEye is authorised by the landowner to operate this private car park for and on its behalf’ and ‘Parking is at the absolute discretion of the Landowner’.
23. Any consideration to the motorist of a grant of parking space flows from the landowner; the signage is believed to have a clause identical to or similar to, ‘Parking is at the absolute discretion of the Landowner’. There is no consideration from the motorist as parking is free.
24. Although each case turns on its own facts, in all cases where ParkingEye’s contract with the landowner has been fully disclosed, the charge for breach of contract is collected by ParkingEye on behalf of the landowner. This is usually disclosed in paragraph 3.11. This further confirms ParkingEye act as agent for the landowner.
25. ParkingEye provide the landowner with a web interface where they can check parking charges issued and paid. This is usually disclosed in paragraph 8 of their contract with the landowner. It is further disclosed on their web site. Thus, ParkingEye is acting as an agent of the landowner.
26.If ParkingEye deny acting as an agent then they are put to strict proof
by disclosing the appropriate parts of their contact (usually clauses 3.11
and 8) with the landowner.
27. Fairlie v Fenton establishes the situation regarding agency.
a. If the agent is acting on behalf of an undisclosed principal, they can sue and be sued
b. If the agent is acting on behalf of a named principal, they cannot sue
c. If the agent is acting on behalf of a principal whose name is not disclosed, then they can only sue if they assume the risk; in other words, if they can be sued if they fail to uphold their part of the bargain.
28. This case is clearly (c). The signage states ParkingEye are acting on
behalf of the landowner, but does not state who the landowner is. The
small print in the signage has a clause similar to ‘ParkingEye do not
assume the risk if problems occur; in these cases it is the landowner
who would be liable. We are not responsible for the car park surface,
other motor vehicles, damage or loss to or from motor vehicles or
general site safely.’
29. ParkingEye therefore have no standing to bring this case. Only the
landowner has the right to do this.
30. In ParkingEye v Beavis, clauses 3.11 and 8 were redacted from the
contract given to the judges. Therefore any judgment would not have
been able to take these clauses into account.
E.The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and is therefore an
unenforceable penalty
31. The claim is for breach of contract. In such cases, it is trite law that any
charge is intended to put the recipient back in the position they were
had the breach not occurred. If the charge is larger, as in this case, then
it is a penalty and the whole charge is unenforceable.
32. As previously explained, the parking charge amount is due to the
landowner, not the claimant. The Claimant collects it on the landowner’s
behalf. The Claimant has suffered no actual, or genuine pre-estimate of,
loss as a result of any alleged overstay. There is no initial loss to the
Claimant, and they have no standing to bring any case.
33.In any case, all costs are due to the cost of enforcement, which was
established in ParkingEye v Beavis to be an average of around £18 per
ticket issued. These can therefore be mitigated by taking no action. The
charge of £100 is primarily intended as a deterrent. It is, therefore, an
unenforceable penalty.
34.The charge for breach of contract is collected on behalf of the
landowner, according to clause 3.11 of the landowner contract. However,
all costs for issuing tickets are borne by ParkingEye. The landowner
therefore suffers no loss at all. This bizarre business arrangement means that
there is no cause of action.
35.The Claimant may rely on the ruling of ParkingEye v Beavis, held in the
court of appeal in February 2015 and since then in the Supreme Court.
However each case must turn on its own fact and the facts of that case
are different to this.
36.The Court of Appeal ruled that is a charge was not a genuine pre-estimate
of loss it could nevertheless be saved as a penalty if (i) there was social
justification, and (ii) the charge was no more than needed to deter, which
was established by comparison with council charges at that site.
37.The social justification was because the car park was in a town centre
near to a railway station and so might be abused by commuters who
stayed all day. Additionally it was alleged that retailers would suffer if
motorists stayed longer than allowed, and other motorists would not be
able to find a space when they wanted to shop. ParkingEye have not
established any social justification in this particular case.
38. .In this case equivalent council fines are £25 rising to £50 after 14 days. In
comparison to this the sum demanded is clearly far more than that needed
to deter, far more than genuine losses, and is therefore disproportionate.
39. Additionally the sum is roughly equivalent to a week’s state pension or a
day and a half take home pay at average earnings. It is therefore a huge
sum, completely disproportionate to the costs involved in any overstay.
Additionally
40. ParkingEye are known to attempt to discredit defences by claiming they come from online forums. Although there is nothing wrong with using online forums, and most legal professionals use the internet for research, I confirm that my defence has been individually researched although legal arguments have been garnered from online resources.
41. In any case, ParkingEye cases all explore the same few areas of law and it is therefore not surprising that as ParkingEye file an estimated 50,000 claims a year that many defences will be similar in nature.
0
Comments
-
Still no feedback, but my time is running out, so I'm attempting to sent my appeal to POPLA on-line... has anyone else had difficulties attempting to attach documents to on-line appeals?This is a system account and does not represent a real person. To contact the Forum Team email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com0
-
Sorry to sound harsh, but ........... your 'appeal' is a mish-mash. It is laid out like a small claims court defence - I'm sure you've copied one from somewhere - where did you get it from?
I had to stop reading because I just can't understand where it is going. You quote Beavis in the context of the Court of Appeal decision, and argue against it, yet this has been totally overtaken by the Supreme Court judgment, which has all but confirmed all the points determined by the CoA. You then seem to argue some points against the SS. Unless you're a whizz bang lawyer, trying to pick holes in the Supreme Court judgment is not really recommended! As I said I really can't make out where you are going with it.
Here is a PE POPLA appeal thread linked by Coupon-mad in the newbies sticky as a decent example. The thread and the appeal develops over a number of posts until a final appeal emerges. You need to go through the whole thread, not just grab the first draft appeal posted early in the thread.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5317558
The appeal paragraphs/headings covered by the appeal are the ones you need to concentrate on and include in yours.
Some caveats:
This appeal related to a P&D car park - not sure what yours was.
The Beavis references were placed in the draft appeal before the Supreme Court judgment - which overrides anything previous and is now binding where the circumstances of parking a la Beavis pertain. So you need to ditch all those and work in something that differentiates your case from that of Barry Beavis.
So some work to do, but personally I'd be starting with a clean sheet of paper. Flash your reworking up here for critique before submitting to POPLA.Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street0 -
Thanks for your response. I'm sorry it was so unreadable and muddled. Unfortunately for me it came too late to be useful. I did search around for appeals to the new POPLA but kept finding references to POPLA were the old POPLA and talking about small claims. I did try to follow other threads but have found accessing forums and navigating round them quite a challenge. Much of what I put into my draft came from a suggested sample of a POPLA appeal from ParkingPrankster's site. I knew that I wasn't getting the thing right and floundering on so much of this. My draft sat on two forums un-commented on for two weeks., however, it got to yesterday and I didn't have the luxury of anymore time to wait for guidance as my POPLA limit is next week, my work load is very heavy at this time and I did not want to miss the chance of submitting an appeal. Someone from Parkingprankster suggested some changes, which I made, but hardly seem worth sharing now..To make a long story short, I have sent an appeal off by Royal Mail, as I could not get the POPLA on-line appeal site to accept my attachment. Whatever the outcome, I'll post to let people know and at that time include what I sent as an appeal. Hopefully that will be of some benefit to others.This is a system account and does not represent a real person. To contact the Forum Team email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com0
-
Troll or PPC employee?/0
-
Harsh
No reply was given for 2 weeks to the original post0 -
You would be best to come back sooner, in January when you get the evidence pack from the PPC as an equally important issue is rebutting the evidence. We can help with that.FreyasmumSOS wrote: »Thanks for your response. I'm sorry it was so unreadable and muddled. Unfortunately for me it came too late to be useful. I did search around for appeals to the new POPLA but kept finding references to POPLA were the old POPLA and talking about small claims. I did try to follow other threads but have found accessing forums and navigating round them quite a challenge. Much of what I put into my draft came from a suggested sample of a POPLA appeal from ParkingPrankster's site. I knew that I wasn't getting the thing right and floundering on so much of this.
My draft sat on two forums un-commented on for two weeks, however, it got to yesterday and I didn't have the luxury of anymore time to wait for guidance as my POPLA limit is next week, my work load is very heavy at this time and I did not want to miss the chance of submitting an appeal.
Someone from Parkingprankster suggested some changes, which I made, but hardly seem worth sharing now..To make a long story short, I have sent an appeal off by Royal Mail, as I could not get the POPLA on-line appeal site to accept my attachment.
Whatever the outcome, I'll post to let people know and at that time include what I sent as an appeal. Hopefully that will be of some benefit to others.
If ever you get no answer on a forum after 48 hours and your post has dropped off page one, if you need help, don't wait - no-one will see it once it's dropped down! Always ask again with another reply.
You were probably unlucky in that less people are free to assist when the forum gets busy at holiday times (only really an issue in August and December so it's just bad timing). Remember we are all busy people too! I have a family including 4 kids and a full time job, for example (others are equally busy) and we are only doing this out of the goodness of our hearts because we hate PPC scammers.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Thanks for your comments. I am a novice to forums altogether and didn't undersatnd I could post another reply. I did panic because my days for responding were running out. When I hear back from POPLA I shall post and see what guidance I recieve then. If December is difficult, let's hope I don't get a response until January!This is a system account and does not represent a real person. To contact the Forum Team email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com0
-
Hi Friends. I have now had a letter from POPLA informing me that they have my "case file", but no such thing has reached me yet. I have spoken to 3 employees of PE- one said there was nothing to come from them, the second said it had been E Mailed to me... the third said it had been posted by snail mail and that if it doesn't arrive by Friday... to phone back. So, with POPLAs clock ticking I'm expecting to be asking for help very shortly.This is a system account and does not represent a real person. To contact the Forum Team email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com0
-
so , if it does not arrive you contact popla next monday and ask them to delay any decision pending you obtaining the evidence pack from PE in case you need to rebut any points0
-
The info from PE has arrived (a week late). I plan to phone Popla tomorrow and request an additional week. The pack contains copies of all the correspondence so far between myself and PE. There are also seven photos of parking signs (the small print cannot be read with a magnifying glass. The arguments against me are on two sides of an A4 page.Is there a way to scan these here?This is a system account and does not represent a real person. To contact the Forum Team email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards