POPLA or not, advice needed

BlindXX

On advice given, I have prepared this for a POPLA appeal - any comment appreciated!
hxxps://docs.google.com/document/d/1a9C1QsvwRHU--n5KNKyIR_jFAJa8BjMQ4OUVAmrVVO4/edit?usp=sharing

The_Deep

Warn them that, if this goes to PoPLA and you prevail, or they win and take you to court and you prevail, you will be invoicing them for your time.

DollyDee_2

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1a9C1QsvwRHU--n5KNKyIR_jFAJa8BjMQ4OUVAmrVVO4/edit?usp=sharing

BlindXX

Thanks, that was going to be one of my next questions! My appeal was simply rejected, I'll just invoice them in the post if I'm successful!

Umkomaas

Looks ok with a glance-over.

You touch on Beavis in your signage appeal point, but it's likely that the PPC will put in an argument that because of Beavis (as an all-encompassing, any parking infringement rule) their charge is legitimised. So you need to debunk that and head it off in advance.

Here's a quick link to a 'debunking', but it relates to a P&D car park, so you'll need to do some editing, but it at least gives you a starting point.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=71071381&postcount=15

I didn't go to the links in your appeal document, so I'm not sure whether you've included the Supreme Court official tweet which confirms that their ruling was very specific to the Beavis car park and to the signage on it.

Here's a link to that - and worth quoting because there's a big gap between a free retail car park and a permit only car park.

https://mobile.twitter.com/UKSupremeCourt/status/661846322417397760

Have you referred to this court case which related to 'forbidding signs'?

https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/article_attachments/204374089/High_Wycombe_Three_Approved_Judgment.pdf

Carthesis

I notice that nowhere in your POPLA appeal does it state that the signage and their alleged charge are not for the same transgression.

The signage states "clearly displayed", but not where. If you can show that the permit was displayed, then you've complied with the terms as written on the signage, and as it is the SIGNAGE which they are relying on to form a contract, then the terms on the sign override anything else.

Plus, as unreasonable as a £100 charge for failure to display a permit that they've issued to you themselves is, it's infinitely more unreasonable for the charge to be issued because you've displayed it in the wrong window!

BlindXX

Sorry Carthesis, I don't understand the point about not being for the same transgression. It was failure to show a permit, which both my PCN and the sign state. I have updated the doc to show a picture of the permit in the position it was displayed at the time. There is already a link to the tweet, so I've made no alteration there. I've added some text about the Beavis debunking (the last block before point 3) - must be honest I don't fully understand it, hope what I've put in is relevant. Haven't referenced the forbidding signs, I didn't see how it was relevant to my particular case, but I may have completely missed the obvious on that one. I have difficulty with legal speak!

Carthesis

Ignore what it says on the permit.

They PPC are relying on THE SIGNAGE AND THE SIGNAGE ALONE to prove a contract exists, therefore the terms which apply are the ones on THE SIGN.

THE SIGN says only that the permit must be clearly visible - which it was.

They are attempting to "fine" you for displaying the permit in the wrong window, when THE SIGNAGE doesn't explicitly state in which window it must be displayed.

(And, regardless of that fact, I'd hope to God, Buddha, Allah, Yahweh, Shiva and any other diety that might be listening that any sensible jurist in this country would take one look at the case, conclude that you'd displayed a valid permit in a visible location, and throw the case out forthwith.)

Carthesis

Oh - and the Beavis debunking **ALWAYS** goes in, so that some half-arsed, minimum-wage, previously-a-nail-technician WHOPLA assessor doesn't have the get out that you haven't distinguished this case from the Beavis case and therefore can reject your appeal.

Umkomaas

Haven't referenced the forbidding signs, I didn't see how it was relevant to my particular case, but I may have completely missed the obvious on that one. I have difficulty with legal speak!

I was thinking about that on the drive home. You're right, it doesn't apply, so glad you've left it out. No harm done.