Made myself a nice video of the errors with NSGL parking tickets

ladaowner55

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3AMxoOPQa4

Can we give it's some likes please.

At the popla stage now. However the popla web site are checky as they only allow you to use 2000 characters to defend yourself.

Coupon-mad

ladaowner55 wrote: »

At the popla stage now. However the popla web site are cheeky as they only allow you to use 2000 characters to defend yourself.

No they don't...we send 6 - 10 page POPLA appeals every time. You should be doing these appeals as PDFs and attaching/uploading that PDF appeal under 'OTHER'. Not trying to answer leading questions on the POPLA page, apparently written by the BPA, nor restricting an appeal to 2000 words. Newbies only need to search the forum for the keyword '2000' and they can find that mentioned every week, pretty much.

Signage being unreadable isn't a bad POPLA appeal point but appealing as keeper then arguing 'no keeper liability' plus 'no evidence that the appellant keeper is the individual liable (the driver)' is IMHO more certain to win at POPLA now. Several template POPLA points are now in the 'POPLA Decisions' thread (at the end).

No drivers should be appealing by writing about what happened; we hope no-one is pinning their hopes on a weak, short POPLA appeal. Best of luck, fight on even if cases are lost. POPLA should be easy to win v NSGL though, for a registered keeper who hasn't said who parked.

ladaowner55

Today I find lots of brand new signage at Gloucester Docks, lol. Does this mean they will cancel my parking invoice with POPLA because they agree that I was correct? Not a chance in hell? NSGL won't never admit they were wrong. That would mean they would have to give a refund to everyone for the past 4+ years while they have been illegal invoicing people.

I know you are reading this Mark, so I will say there are still plenty of mistakes with your signage but I should keep these mistakes for if our paths cross again, lol.

ladaowner55

DecisionSuccessful
Assessor NameSamuel Connop
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that appellant not parked within the marked bays and caused an obstruction.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the signage does comply with the requirements set out by the British Parking Association Code (BPA) of Practice. The appellant feels that there is a lack of signage at the site in question. The appellant feels that as the owner of the bay that they had overlapped into does not own a vehicle, they have not caused any obstruction or financial loss to the landowner. The appellant does not believe that the operator can take them to court due on behalf of the land owner.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has issued the parking charge, as the appellant had parked in a way that that they have no parked within a marked bay and therefore caused an obstruction. While the appellant has raised a number of grounds for appeal, my report will focus solely on signage, as this supersedes the other aspects of the appeal. Within its response, the operator has provided photographs documenting the signage at the location. Within Section 18.2 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice it states that Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. Entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in a standard format. The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park, and it is recommended that you follow Department for Transport guidance on this. See Appendix B for an example of an entrance sign and more information about their use. Furthermore, Section 18.3 of the 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.” Within its response, the operator has provided photographs documenting the signage at the location. However, after reviewing the site map provided by the operator, it shows that there are only three signs at the site and these signs are all located at the entrance. Therefore, I do not consider the signs to be conspicuous and legible. By issuing the appellant with a Parking Charge Notice, the operator has implied that the appellant had not complied with the terms and conditions of the car park in question. The burden of proof rests with the operator to show that the appellant has not complied with the terms and conditions of the car park. Whilst I acknowledge the appellant had not parked within the marked bays, I am not satisfied that the appellant had the opportunity to read the terms and therefore accept the contract. As such, I must allow the appeal.

Coupon-mad

Nice one, good decision from an Assessor who looked at the signage evidence - well done!