PLEASE HELP a NEWBIE - 7 days to respond to POPLA

Fruitcake

tiredmumof2 wrote: »

so - received the outcome from POPLA - we've been unsuccessful.




The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place at the site showing the terms and conditions in force. The terms and conditions state, “Parking tariffs apply 24 hours a day, 7 days a week” and “Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a parking charge of: £70”. The operator has also provided a copy of the whitelist look up, which provides the vehicle registration numbers for vehicles registered at the car park on that day. This demonstrates that the vehicle was not registered to park at the site on the day in question. The appellant states that his son suffers from Type 1 diabetes, on the night in question his son was very ill due to experiencing a Hyperglycaemic episode and needed to be rushed to hospital for urgent treatment. The appellant states that his mind was not on parking but on his gravely ill son and feels that the parking charge notice was inappropriate and unfair, under the circumstances. The appellant states that due to the circumstances and time of night he did not see the signage. I appreciate the appellant’s circumstances and that his mind was not on parking charges and checking the signage on the day in question. 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. Even if a motorist presents mitigating circumstances setting out exceptional reasons why they did not keep to the parking conditions, POPLA cannot allow an appeal if a contract was formed and the motorist did not keep to the parking conditions. Therefore, the operator has demonstrated to my satisfaction that the signage is sufficient and meets the British Parking Associations (BPA) Code of Practice and, that there is sufficient ambient lighting to ensure that the signage is visible at night. Furthermore, it is the appellant’s responsibility to ensure that he is aware of the sites terms and conditions before parking. By parking at the site, the appellant has agreed to the terms and conditions and, agreed to pay the parking charge notice (PCN) if he contravenes them. The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal in his comments regarding the operator’s evidence. However, the opportunity to provide further comments regarding the operator’s evidence is chance of rebuttal, not the opportunity to raise further points of appeal. Therefore, while I recognise that appellant’s comments I cannot consider any further points of appeal. In conclusion, the operator has demonstrated that the appellant did not comply with the sites terms and conditions. Therefore, while I recognise that the appellant’s main concern was getting his son treatment, I determine that the PCN was issued correctly.


We contacted the hospital as soon as Redx suggested it and they said they couldn't assist until POPLA made their decision. I've just spoken with the lady from PALS and she said she's going to speak with Parking Eye now.... fingers crossed!

Did you send the rebuttal information including breach of EA 2010 from C-M (post 8) to PALS as well as PoPLA? If not, do it now. PALS need a rocket up their backsides over allowing this sort of thing to happen when they are the principle in this and therefore jointly guilty of breaching the Equality Act.

salmosalaris

Another rebuttal ignored by POPLA with consideration only of the initial appeal.

There is a possible positive slant on this . I am yet to see a POPLA assessment in a case that contained all those rebuttal points in the original appeal . I may be wrong but as some such "strong" initial appeals were sent (with subsequent rebuttals ) well before some of the recent losses we've seen , are these cases being put to the bottom of the pile ?
Time will tell

Coupon-mad

Astonishing. That was just a rebuttal of PE's evidence pack with no new appeal points and PE pretty clearly, cannot apply Beavis here. The SC Judges even said the £85 in Beavis was OK partly because ''the term does not exclude any right which the consumer may be said to enjoy under the general law or by statute.’’

The OP did question the rationale of the charge and did mention the disability in the first appeal so her rights as a carer UNDER STATUTE were unlawfully limited and restricted.

Nothing was new was added above, just rebutted - and ignored. Unless landowner authority was new...I might have sneaked that in or did you have it in your appeal?

Needs a complaint to the Lead Adjudicator and then to ISPA I think.

- The Assessor glibly says: ''POPLA cannot allow an appeal if a contract was formed'' = the truth is POPLA cannot legally uphold a parking charge where the alleged 'contract' is unenforceable under the Equality Act 2010. No contract can be formed that is against disability law!

- POPLA appear to have given you NO RIGHT to comment on the Beavis case in rebuttal even though your POPLA appeal at first was before any consumer could have had a chance to assimilate that decision or include it. POPLA has said consumers ARE allowed to comment on the Beavis case so this rebuttal was partly exercising that right. POPLA have denied you ANY PE v Beavis comment! Not even read it!

- ''...feels that the parking charge notice was inappropriate and unfair, under the circumstances.'' POPLA are surely obliged to consider unfairness whether raised or not (and here it was raised). This is due to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 requiring unfairness ALWAYS to be considered in courts where there is a consumer contract - therefore why not at POPLA which is telling the appellant the charge was 'properly issued' when it was not.

- ''...there is sufficient ambient lighting to ensure that the signage is visible at night.'' Really? Are the photos in the evidence pack in the dark then, were POPLA shown by PE, how legible the signs were at night? Is the finding here true?

- Did you not have 'no landowner authority' in your first appeal? If you did then the lack of contract would have caused PE to lose the case.

Hopefully PALS will step in, if not, ask to escalate it as 'discrimination' because PE 'knew or should have known' about the protected characteristics of your son from the first appeal and they failed in law by making no reasonable adjustment (repeat some of what was used above re the EA, in your complaint to the Hospital).

tiredmumof2

Fruitcake wrote: »

Did you send the rebuttal information including breach of EA 2010 from C-M (post 8) to PALS as well as PoPLA? If not, do it now. PALS need a rocket up their backsides over allowing this sort of thing to happen when they are the principle in this and therefore jointly guilty of breaching the Equality Act.

Hi Fruitcake,


Yes - I provided PALS with the same information. However, I've just spoken to the secretary to the Director of PALS and she stated the Director with speak with Parking Eye (now the POPLA decision is known) and he might "request" they overturn the charge - not tell them to overturn the charge!! What on earth??? They are the land owners, they can - given the information I've provided - demand the charge be cancelled. We all know PE won't overturn the charge if they're "asked"..... I'm raging! So I told them they are now in breach of the EA 2010 by allowing this to go through and I'm going to seek legal advice now. I'm not backing down - no way am I paying the fine.

Redx

good , but dont burn your bridges just yet, see what PALS and the "director" come back with , then hit them with this link and details by Jeremy Hunt , recently updated in oct 2015

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles

that is if they fail to cancel the invoice / pcn

if they still fail to cancel it, start a counter claim LBC naming both PE and the trust as jointly and severally liable and quote that NHS guidance as well as the EA2010

also try FOI requests too , like fergie76 was doing last year , make life difficult for them and also involve your MP as well , like fergie76 did

see here https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5049715

but give them a short time to get it cancelled "as a goodwill gesture"