Premier Park Limited - Now a Court Claim

thorfan

Wonder what the ISPA think?

Don't know... but might find out next week!
Some bits from the emails.

DVLA - DVLA’s remit only extends as far as to ensure that vehicle keeper data is only requested where there is a need to do so.

Having considered the evidence provided, it appears that the instructions on the signage were not complied with – “Please enter full, correct vehicle registration number”. This provided with the parking company the reasonable cause to request the keeper details to pursue this matter.

DVLA cannot comment on the reasons provided in your appeal as this is a civil matte between the motorist and the parking company.

AOS - I will look in to the matter with Premier Park and once I have resolved the investigation, I will be in touch. (Actually this was the whole content of the email)

POPLA - ...you have previously spoken to POPLA about the landowner authority; you advise that it was acknowledged but not acted upon.

When looking at appeals POPLA can only deal with points of appeal the appellant has raised directly with us, this is the information you provided when you submitted your appeal. I can see that you mention landowner authority in the motorist’s comments. The comments at that time are on the evidence provided by the operator unfortunately we cannot look at these as a new ground of appeal.

Response to last... Please can you confirm your statement that ' POPLA can only deal with points of appeal the appellant has raised directly with us' and therefore anything provided in the evidence and any subsequent rebuttal are redundant?

I haven't had anything back yet from POPLA yet.

I wasn't expecting much more from the DVLA, was pleasantly surprised that the BPA responded and actually shocked by the response for POPLA. I have began putting together a letter for IPSA, but I am waiting for more from POPLA. I do like the fact that everyone seems to think that the word 'Please' constitute a binding contract. However, I am feeling light-headed from donating blood earlier and I have a major reunion this weekend, so I am going to leave the fight for now. Let's see what Monday brings!

Ralph-y

well done so far .........

you should be a where that in the early days of the 'old' popla there where some of the assessors who had to be taken to task

my suspicions are that similar actions may be now needed with the 'new' popla

who was your assessor ?

Ralph:cool:

Coupon-mad

So POPLA have admitted they will not consider comments/rebuttal? They are digging a hole.

If you didn't mention 'no landowner authority' in your first POPLA appeal, I can in fact see where they are coming from...BUT notwithstanding what your POPLA appeal submission did or didn't say, it is a fundamental requirement that the evidence to POPLA categorically MUST match that sent to an appellant.

thorfan

Email from POPLA:
When submitting your appeal online, you ticked a box to confirm that you understood and accepted our terms and conditions, which stated as follows:
“You will not be able to edit your appeal once you have submitted it. It is important you have provided all necessary information as you cannot change POPLA’s decision later…”

As such I can confirm that any evidence submitted after this would not be considered.

Therefore the case was assessed upon grounds of appeal and evidence supplied in your initial appeal submission

So if you find something in the evidence pack to rebut or invalidate the PCN, it does not matter. I have a significant amount of alcohol :beer: to imbibe this weekend so I am not going to play with this now. If any one wants to point the Prankster in this direction feel free.

salmosalaris

So what is the point of providing the operator's evidence to the appellant or giving the appellant 7 days to respond to it ?
And what about those cases that were put on hold until BPA/POPLA had cobbled together a generic paragraph on Beavis to reject any suggestion it was irrelevant ?. Wasn't the appellant given 7days to respond to the operator's submission on their opinion re Beavis ?

Coupon-mad

salmosalaris wrote: »

So what is the point of providing the operator's evidence to the appellant or giving the appellant 7 days to respond to it ?
And what about those cases that were put on hold until BPA/POPLA had cobbled together a generic paragraph on Beavis to reject any suggestion it was irrelevant ?. Wasn't the appellant given 7days to respond to the operator's submission on their opinion re Beavis ?

Exactly. POPLA are digging a deep hole and this needs exposing. It is clear they are not even reading Beavis case comments from consumers!

Castle

thorfan wrote: »

Email from POPLA:
When submitting your appeal online, you ticked a box to confirm that you understood and accepted our terms and conditions, which stated as follows:

Maybe we should start posting our appeals to POPLA as there are no "terms and conditions" stated on their website.

salmosalaris

Let's stop playing their silly game , send written appeals and demand POPLA send out copies of the operator's evidence . Why should an appellant have to rely on late/incomplete evidence provided from the PPC ? The online portal is potentially booby trapped .
Why dance to their tune ?

Guys_Dad

Can I just confirm. Is this "New POPLA" or "Wright Hassall POPLA"?

When did you submit your original POPLA appeal?

catfunt

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Can I just confirm. Is this "New POPLA" or "Wright Hassall POPLA"?

When did you submit your original POPLA appeal?

thorfan wrote: »

Timeline: Sept: Alleged Parking Infraction
Oct: Appeal to operator, referred to POPLA, Appeal to POPLA
U/K: POPLA place appeal on hold
Feb: POPLA offer chance for further comment, POPLA reject appeal

So I assume it would have to be New Popla.