Appealing PCN on basis of genuine pre-estimated loss post-Beavis

Coupon-mad

BlueKiev wrote: »

If Parking eye v Beavis was your only line of appeal, you will loose the case.

With supreme court ruling, it's a no win situation I'm afraid.

Unhelpful posting from a newbie with 10 posts to their name. The OP says they haven't submitted a POPLA appeal yet. We are telling them NOT to base it on 'no GPEOL' so they will be steered the right way.

And what do you mean, 'loose', as in slack?! Your spelling is as bad as a parking firm knuckle-dragger.

If I do not have a leg to stand on please let me know as I would prefer to pay the discounted rated if I am doomed for rejection at POPLA.

You do have legs to stand on. Have a look at the byelaws as posted by IamEmanresu. Who do they say is 'liable'? Driver? Owner? Who?

Have a look at Indigo POPLA appeals (search the forum) and show us your draft based on one of those but relating to the correct byelaws.

Redx

generally these metrolink car parks are free to commuters but they normally dont allow overnight parking, so issue tickets early in the morning

unfortunately this deters people who park up , use the tram to go and have a drink, watch a show or go clubbing, and on their return leave the car while morning instead of illegally driving back home late at night , intoxicated

sometimes they trial free overnight parking to assist witb the above , mainly due to bad press coverage on those issues

its railway land , so not POFA2012 compliant

we have seen many of these over the years on here, search using METROLINK as the search word , or CARE PARKING

appeal in the same manner , not disclosing the drivers details, use similar popla appeals to the previous ones or INDIGO railway ones, but not using "not a gpeol" due to the Beavis loss last year

there are "plenty of legs to stand on" , the usual railway land and byelaws apply and not POFA2012 complaint ones , plus inadequate signage , no contract etc

iamc12ab

The car park is no overnight parking so is more trespassing than an overstay. Im thinking of using this to differentiate my case from Beavis by also highlighting the fact it was not used to support commercial activities (retail outlets) at the time.

I am also planning on challenging the signage which states 'no overnight parking' and 'no parking outside tram service hours'. I plan to argue both are too vague. I.e. what constitutes overnight parking? The ticket was issued at 3am, so if the car was removed at 3:30 does this count as overnight? As for tram service hours, trams can be late and challenge the issuer to prove all trams were off the network.

More interestingly, there was early morning trams running to the airport (start at 3am) which although do not run from the line I was parked at, the sign does not reference the line. I am planning to use both to argue no contract was formed as the terms were not clearly defined. Thoughts welcome.

As for keeper liability, I did appeal in response to the windscreen ticket (only read advice to wait for NTK afterwards sadly) and partially implicated myself in the internal response (see previous post for my response).

My most important concern is whether I should write my POPLA APPEAL denying I was the driver, or will this only implicate me further? Any advice on whether to admit I was the driver or deny and take keeper approach would be extremely helpful.

Coupon-mad

My most important concern is whether I should write my POPLA APPEAL denying I was the driver, or will this only implicate me further? Any advice on whether to admit I was the driver or deny and take keeper approach would be extremely helpful.

No, it doesn't implicate you at all to chance your arm and write as keeper only, if you feel that the driver wasn't identified then it would be up to the PPC to prove that the driver was established. Some PPCs don't even send POPLA the first appeal with the paperwork. Worth a shot and loses you no brownie points by trying. You only have to win on one point at POPLA.

I am also planning on challenging the signage which states 'no overnight parking' and 'no parking outside tram service hours'.

That's prohibitive signage then - no contract offered at all. A matter of trespass only, at best. Quote the Beavis decision on trespass (read the Judgment and search it for that word) because the Judges helpfully confirmed that a parking firm can't charge for a matter falling under the tort of trespass, with no contract. Only a landowner can.

As I said before, model your POPLA appeal on another byelaws one, like an Indigo one because we always win them and have some solid examples recently of decent POPLA wording you could adapt. And again, did you answer this?

Have a look at the byelaws as posted by IamEmanresu. Who do they say is 'liable'? Driver? Owner? Who?

iamc12ab

And again, did you answer this?
“
Have a look at the byelaws as posted by IamEmanresu. Who do they say is 'liable'? Driver? Owner? Who?

I had a look and it sounds to me like it's the driver. So should I deny I was the driver?

Coupon-mad

No, not 'deny' unless you are certain the keeper was not the driver. Be truthful, keep the moral high ground over this hated 'industry'.

Just appeal as keeper and adapt an Indigo version POPLA appeal point about 'the operator has not shown that the individual they are pursuing for the charge is the person liable'. You can find that by searching either 'Indigo POPLA' or 'individual liable' or similar keywords. You'll soon find one, which in Indigo examples are written to say there's no evidence of who the OWNER was (because railway byelaws hold the owner liable only).

Change those you find, to suit, and show us what you come up with. A POPLA appeal should have 4 or 5 appeal points and look like those you see have won recently.

iamc12ab

Well I submitted my POPLA appeal... and literally the next day, the carpark operator (Care Parking aka Anchor Security Services) changed all the signs in the carpark and included pretty much every point I made in my appeal. Luckily I had photographs of the original signs and emailed them to POPLA shortly after along with my concerns that the operator may submit the new signs as evidence in their counter-appeal.

So last week, Care Parking submitted their case file; and as I suspected, included the new signs (and even created fictitious signs which are not there today) and quoted them consistently throughout their response. Fortunately, Care Parkings finest aren't the brightest bunch as they included photographs taken at the time of issue in their case file which are mostly illegible, but it is clearly noticeable that these differ from the easy-to-read copies they included and match what I photographed.

I have further informed POPLA through commenting on the operators response and emailed an additional copy of the photographs I taken. I am hoping this guarantees my appeal to be successful, but believe Care Parking deserve more than simply to lose one parking appeal. After-all, the situation would have been completely different had I not been paranoid enough to have taken photographs of the signage and feel uncomfortable that operators are free to issue parking charges and falsify evidence to extort money from drivers.

I am already in the process of writing to the landowner (Manchester Metrolink) to make them aware of the situation, but would welcome any other suggestions as to how I can cause as much inconvenience as possible to Care Parking. At the end of the day, they falsified evidence and blatantly lied to attempt to extort £100 out of myself. In other situations, this would be illegal and would result in serious consequences. However, I am aware parking does not have the cowboy reputation it has for nothing, but if anyone has any suggestions on who I can contact to give Care Parking a bad day please let me know.

Cheers.

Coupon-mad

Complaint ideas:

- your MP

- Theresa May (bearing in mind the thread about her listening re private parking scams)

- the DCLG

- the landowner

- local paper

- Daily Mail (IvorPECheque has posted the email address of a reporter interested in at least one aspect of private parking firm scams)

- the DVLA

- the BPA (last resort, since they are reportedly rather busy lifting the carpet to sweep a bit more dirt under, for their 'members').

iamc12ab

So POPLA made a decision on my appeal today... and decided to reject it!

Despite me emailing POPLA twice saying Care Parking submitted false evidence in their case file (with photos of the new and old signs... and they are clearly contradictory in the case file), the assessor has completely ignored this and made the decision that the signage was adequate!, Consistently quoting the false evidence in their decision!

Lesson learnt: If a carpark has inadequate signage, the operator can simply fabricate and make up information to still win the appeal.

fisherjim

The second case today that proves POPLA is not fit for purpose!