POPLA first attempt

Quentin

4consumerrights wrote: »

I note you did not object when Coupon Mad replied to any customer queries raised on the forum...

I am hardly advertising a specific business in every post with the signature however

What difference does it make to the price of cheese which one of you used this forum to deal with your disgruntled customers complaining here?




You are the one currently publicly abusing the forum and sniping away at your (ex?) colleague presumably because she left the sinking ship??



(Your sig is clearly an advert specifically about your "own business")

4consumerrights

Quentin wrote: »

What difference does it make to the price of cheese which one of you used this forum to deal with your disgruntled customers complaining here?




You are the one currently publicly abusing the forum and sniping away at your (ex?) colleague presumably because she left the sinking ship??



(Your sig is clearly an advert specifically about your "own business")

Whereas your posts are full of assistance to OPs on this forum...

..... sniping ?

I pointed out a simple typing error - reading/comprehension is not your strong point is it?

pappa_golf

43 post , of which 15 have been point scoring


take it off board and SORT it , NOT HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

4consumerrights

pappa_golf wrote: »

43 post , of which 15 have been point scoring


take it off board and SORT it , NOT HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I haven't been counting :-)

(Text removed by MSE Forum team)

pappa_golf

oh god , last word again.




sorry OP , people are bypassing this thread in droves due to the bickering on it.

System

I feel as if I'm putting my head above the parapet to post here. Contributors, your personal disagreements might be better taken elsewhere. Having no further suggestions from learned friends to act on, and incorporate, I have now mailed my rebuttal to Popla, so until I hear back from them, will not be adding to this thread. Thanks for the help and comments which have been offered.

System

If anyone wants to see, the final rebuttal which I sent was:

POPLA code PPPPPPPP
Response to Parking Eye Case CCCCCCC
Vehicle reg. no Reg 111
fao: POPLA AssessmentTeam.
Attachments: 1 x Site Overview plan amended by Reistered Keper
3 x Photographs

In response to ParkingEye's submissions concerning an alleged parking infringement, please note contemporaneous photographic evidence and the full rebuttal which follows
Parking Eye’s first assertion concerns Rules and Conditions.
They claim these are “clearly stated“ on signs around the yyyyyyy Retail Park, Sometown, Car Park. The Site Overview may mark proposed locations for signs, but of fifteen marked, four certainly do not exist. This is not compliant with BPA Code of Practice 18.3 (Specific parking-terms signage) which requires opperators to "keep a record of where all the signs are".
The Registered Keeper has replicated the journey leading to the alleged parking event. On their Site Overview, ParkingEye indicate signs which simply do not exist. They are completely absent, despite their statement to the contrary. [See Registered Keeper's marked copy of ParkingEye's Site Overview plan]
No driver coming off a busy road and entering the car park can see any signage which is conspicuous and clear, much less immediately, as is required by BPA Code of practice (18.2 Entrance signs)

The assessor is invited to note the Registered Keeper's pic. 1, taken at the car park entrance. A lengthy search eventually revealed other signs, again non-compliant.
Any allegedly 'detailed information' about 'parking rules and conditions' is displayed in such small print, again non-compliant, that even standing in front of the signs, they cannot be read, let alone absorbed. [BPA Code of Practice 18.3 Specific parking-terms signage]

Pic.2 clearly shows evidence of this further contravention by ParkingEye.
Pic. 3 indicates the view from the parked car without any signs conspicuous and clear.

Parking Eye’s second point claims authority to act for the Land owners, however they failed to provide this contract or a witness statement supporting it[ being a breach of BPA Code of Practice 7 :Written authorisation of the landowner]. Therefore they have failed to show landowner authority at all - Fairlie v Fenton not being the silver bullet they are trying to make out. As this was one of my main POPLA appeal points then a failure by the operator to show authority means their case is fatally flawed.

Parking Eye now seek to rely upon the judgment against Beavis (2015) UKSC 67, but this has no relevance to this alleged parking event. This alleged 'parking event' is not the same as ParkingEye's claim against Beavis and in my appeal I pointed out that the Supreme Court had tweeted that the decision related to that particular car park with those particular signs. This is not the same car park and I have shown photos of the lack of signs visible and pointed out that the site plan provided in evidence by Parking Eye is incorrect and highly misleading.
The Beavis judgment is not a blanket, fail-safe condemnation of all motorists invoiced by ParkingEye. It is misleading for them to attempt this.
This charge is not one which is “fair, reasonable and legally enforceable” and there was no contract agreed, no obvious and prominent signs, unlike in the Beavis case.
Thankyou for your attention.

Yours faithfully

It's a great relief to have that sent off. No more changespossible...Can anyone tell me how long it might be before I hear the outcome?

Coupon-mad

Can anyone tell me how long it might be before I hear the outcome?

POPLA are very behind, maybe two months!

nigelbb

Coupon-mad wrote: »

POPLA are very behind, maybe two months!

Make that at least three months. I appealed a charge on 11th October & then rebutted the evidence pack on 28th October & still have heard nothing from POPLA.

4consumerrights

FreyasmumSOS wrote: »

If anyone wants to see, the final rebuttal which I sent was:

POPLA code PPPPPPPP
Response to Parking Eye Case CCCCCCC
Vehicle reg. no Reg 111
fao: POPLA AssessmentTeam.
Attachments: 1 x Site Overview plan amended by Reistered Keper
3 x Photographs

In response to ParkingEye's submissions concerning an alleged parking infringement, please note contemporaneous photographic evidence and the full rebuttal which follows
Parking Eye’s first assertion concerns Rules and Conditions.
They claim these are “clearly stated“ on signs around the yyyyyyy Retail Park, Sometown, Car Park. The Site Overview may mark proposed locations for signs, but of fifteen marked, four certainly do not exist. This is not compliant with BPA Code of Practice 18.3 (Specific parking-terms signage) which requires opperators to "keep a record of where all the signs are".
The Registered Keeper has replicated the journey leading to the alleged parking event. On their Site Overview, ParkingEye indicate signs which simply do not exist. They are completely absent, despite their statement to the contrary. [See Registered Keeper's marked copy of ParkingEye's Site Overview plan]
No driver coming off a busy road and entering the car park can see any signage which is conspicuous and clear, much less immediately, as is required by BPA Code of practice (18.2 Entrance signs)

The assessor is invited to note the Registered Keeper's pic. 1, taken at the car park entrance. A lengthy search eventually revealed other signs, again non-compliant.
Any allegedly 'detailed information' about 'parking rules and conditions' is displayed in such small print, again non-compliant, that even standing in front of the signs, they cannot be read, let alone absorbed. [BPA Code of Practice 18.3 Specific parking-terms signage]

Pic.2 clearly shows evidence of this further contravention by ParkingEye.
Pic. 3 indicates the view from the parked car without any signs conspicuous and clear.

Parking Eye’s second point claims authority to act for the Land owners, however they failed to provide this contract or a witness statement supporting it[ being a breach of BPA Code of Practice 7 :Written authorisation of the landowner]. Therefore they have failed to show landowner authority at all - Fairlie v Fenton not being the silver bullet they are trying to make out. As this was one of my main POPLA appeal points then a failure by the operator to show authority means their case is fatally flawed.

Parking Eye now seek to rely upon the judgment against Beavis (2015) UKSC 67, but this has no relevance to this alleged parking event. This alleged 'parking event' is not the same as ParkingEye's claim against Beavis and in my appeal I pointed out that the Supreme Court had tweeted that the decision related to that particular car park with those particular signs. This is not the same car park and I have shown photos of the lack of signs visible and pointed out that the site plan provided in evidence by Parking Eye is incorrect and highly misleading.
The Beavis judgment is not a blanket, fail-safe condemnation of all motorists invoiced by ParkingEye. It is misleading for them to attempt this.
This charge is not one which is “fair, reasonable and legally enforceable” and there was no contract agreed, no obvious and prominent signs, unlike in the Beavis case.
Thankyou for your attention.

Yours faithfully

It's a great relief to have that sent off. No more changespossible...Can anyone tell me how long it might be before I hear the outcome?

I note that you did not challenge the statement on the documents regarding the ambiguity of the number of signs at the location ?

However, your rebuttal linking to the code of practice is OK and if Parking Eye failed to supply any witness statement or landowner agreement then the appeal should be upheld.

At the risk of being accused of having the last word ;-)
- I can only concur with other posters in that POPLA are behind ...
decisions are only coming back now from appeals submitted in September/October