POPLA appeal (thanks to everyone who can help to check)

salmosalaris

@OP
Just simply copy and paste what CM has provided immediately

Coupon-mad

Guys_Dad wrote: »

I would also work in the essential difference between Beavis and your admin slip up for parking in your own space.

But he didn't make an admin slip up. They have angled the photo to show part of the permit only. There was no contravention.

elvinwy

Thank you so much for everyone, especially Coupon-mad. You have written almost everything that I need. I am travelling today and will be able to generate a rebuttal letter in the weekend, before submitting this. Thank you in advance!

elvinwy

It has been a while since my last reply. I want to say "thank you" to everyone who contributed to my appeal. I received the letter from POPLA today (just one month after I submitted my rebuttal), which is "success". Without your helps (especially Coupan-mad), I may not be able to win this battle.

Anyway, we will keep fighting with those companies.

Redx

excellent , please post the PPC and decision in the POPLA DECISIONS sticky thread at the top of this forum , preferably with a url link to this thread as well

Coupon-mad

elvinwy wrote: »

It has been a while since my last reply. I want to say "thank you" to everyone who contributed to my appeal. I received the letter from POPLA today (just one month after I submitted my rebuttal), which is "success". Without your helps (especially Coupan-mad), I may not be able to win this battle.

Anyway, we will keep fighting with those companies.

Fabulous news, very happy to hear this was won.

Loving the POPLA Assessor appearing to quote a line I dare to suggest I think I recognise as my own!

(and POPLA, learn how to spell 'rationale'):


Assessor supporting rational for decision

The operator has issued the PCN on the basis that the vehicle was parked in a residents parking area without clearly displaying a valid residents parking permit. The appellant states that he hired a vehicle and parked it in his designated parking bay with a valid parking permit on display.

The appellant states that the signage is inadequate and the charge is not Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss. The appellant also states that the operator does not have authority to pursue charges and there is no contract between the driver and the operator.

The operator has provided photographs of the appellant’s vehicle parked at the location with the PCN attached to the windscreen. Within the windscreen appears to be a UKPC parking permit. The wording of the parking permit is not clear in the operator’s photograph.

Section 18.3 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice states, “You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. 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 photographs of signage at the location, however the wording of the signage is not visible within the photograph and as such, I cannot ascertain if it would make motorists aware of the terms and conditions of parking at the site.

How a £90 ‘fine’ can arise from a resident’s vehicle being parked in that same resident’s allocated parking space, without being unlawful, is beyond me. As the burden of proof lies with the operator to demonstrate that the PCN was issue correctly, I must allow this appeal. I have not considered any other grounds of appeal as they do not have any bearing on my decision.



:T

:rotfl: