ParkingEye at Portishead Marina Quays

Coupon-mad

Copy & adapt the complaint I wrote in post #48 of let1less' thread on pepipoo here where I post as SRM:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=108912&st=40

Read all of that thread, it's the same issue (different Quay) but Mr Gallagher said in December that he was going to provide feedback to all Assessors so they understand that 'non-relevant land' remains 'non-relevant land' regardless of whether the PPC mentions poxy byelaws or not!

Email a version of that complaint to:

complaints@popla.co.uk

and certainly copy in:

david.dunford@dvla.gsi.gov.uk

Make sure it's changed to make sense (e.g. this isn't the same Port and you don't need the bits about 'cars not being vehicles' nor the bit about the NTK and 'within 29 days').

Or look at post #75 of this one - the end of this complaint:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=108486&st=60

This is the sort of thing you need to send to Mr Gallagher and Mr Dunford (this from the end of that link):


POPLA have ignored my clear evidence in the form of a map showing that this location is not 'relevant land' because the location falls within a site which is under statutory control. In my appeal point #4 I even went as far as quoting from the bylaws ''No person shall park...'' to leave POPLA in no doubt that these are byelaws which undoubtedly apply at this location and which impose rules about parking.

Unbelievably, the POPLA Assessor ignored my evidence and stated: ''I feel it is appropriate to comment on a concern raised by the appellant that this particular car park is governed by Byelaws. This car park is not governed by Byelaws. It does not state this on the signs, nor does the operator confirm this in its case file. The signs state that use of the car park is subject to compliance with the terms and conditions of the site. As such, I will not be considering Byelaws during my assessment of this appeal.''

I require POPLA to explain why an Assessor has been allowed to make the statement ''This car park is not governed by Byelaws'' on the mere basis that she has looked at the operator's own signs and can't see anything about byelaws on them. Of course she can't. The operator is attempting to operate under contract law and they would not have to mention byelaws where they are not describing the parking charge as a 'penalty'. This does not change the fact (and my evidence) that this is not 'relevant land'.

If POPLA Assessors actually believe or have been told that 'not issuing byelaws penalties' is the same thing as 'not relevant land' then urgent retraining is required. So astonishingly awful is the reasoning as set out in this flawed decision that it calls into question whether this Assessor is qualified to make POPLA decisions at all.

Coupon-mad

PGHarper wrote: »

Can I just say thank you to everyone who helped me.

It's no more over than those two pepipoo cases are!

Redx

see what John said here to the ISPA

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5596812

then complain to him (as detailed above) about this flawed decision