P4parking POPLA - admitted liability

mnkut

Hi all,

a friend of mine recently got a PCN from P4parking.
Unfortunately, they made the initial appeal themselves and admitted liability.
Of course, P4parking keenly denied cancelling charges but did offer a POPLA code.

The case is pretty straightforward I feel, terrible signage; poor lighting, not descriptive, certain car park rules were only defined on the permit etc
However I've never fought a PPC ticket where liability has been admitted, is there a chance?
How's best to move forward on the keeper liability point?

As always all guidance is appreciated!

Coupon-mad

Yes, I've fought loads where the driver was identified first. Just go in strong with the other points like signs, with photos embedded into the document to make the appeal look 'appealing' and illustrate it (better than uploading photos in isolation alongside a wall of text appeal).

You can't include keeper liability at all.

If it's a resident's car park with rights of way/easements, include the new argument re the Jopson Appeal decision from Oxford in June.

Umkomaas

If the keeper has admitted being the driver, then 'no keeper liability' is blown out of the water. What exactly did your friend write in the appeal? If you can copy that up here we can see if anything on no keeper liability can be salvaged.

P4P are BPA operators, so beatable via POPLA. Even if no keeper liability is out of the window, there's plenty more to go on. Photos of signage would be a good starting point as anything deemed to be contractual within the PCN has to be covered by the signage on site - the signage purportedly forming the contract.

Get your friend to get snapping - and let us have a look at the photos.

Has your friend had a formal rejection and POPLA code from P4P?

mnkut

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes, I've fought loads where the driver was identified first. Just go in strong with the other points like signs, with photos embedded into the document to make the appeal look 'appealing' and illustrate it (better than uploading photos in isolation alongside a wall of text appeal).

You can't include keeper liability at all.

If it's a resident's car park with rights of way/easements, include the new argument re the Jopson Appeal decision from Oxford in June.

Thank you very much, will fight it with points you've suggested.

It's a residential car park but they don't have access to the lease as tenants.

What are your thoughts on submitting the POPLA days before the deadline? or is it better done in advance?

Coupon-mad

mnkut wrote: »

Thank you very much, will fight it with points you've suggested.

It's a residential car park but they don't have access to the lease as tenants.

What are your thoughts on submitting the POPLA days before the deadline? or is it better done in advance?

Woah...it doesn't matter. Read the Jopson case posted this week in this thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5553131

The residents and their visitors have a right of way/easements in most cases and that should be a line of attack even for a tenant. They have a tenancy agreement that gives them certain rights flowing from the leaseholder, even if they don't know exactly what the lease says they know what their tenancy agreement says. I think Ms Jopson was a tenant...not sure, have a read!

Re POPLA, submit it when ready, no point delaying.

mnkut

Umkomaas wrote: »

If the keeper has admitted being the driver, then 'no keeper liability' is blown out of the water. What exactly did your friend write in the appeal? If you can copy that up here we can see if anything on no keeper liability can be salvaged.

P4P are BPA operators, so beatable via POPLA. Even if no keeper liability is out of the window, there's plenty more to go on. Photos of signage would be a good starting point as anything deemed to be contractual within the PCN has to be covered by the signage on site - the signage purportedly forming the contract.

Get your friend to get snapping - and let us have a look at the photos.

Has your friend had a formal rejection and POPLA code from P4P?

Unfortunately, they appealed via the online portal P4parking did not send a copy of the appeal and they did not keep a copy. Also there's a drop down option for admitting liability as driver, which they filled in. (I've noticed with a few PPCs including P4parking, ParkingEye etc) So no hope there.

I shall upload signage now, it's appalling to say the least.
The warden actually wrongly guided them to park there too, although I'm not sure how valuable that is at POPLA? (can get witness statement)

Yes they received a formal rejection and POPLA code, have validated the code and the deadline is early December.

Thank you for your guidance, much appreciated!

mnkut

The signage upclose
http://i65.tinypic.com/2zsagas.jpg


The placement of the signage in the residential estate, all at angles very difficult to see or read and far from the actual parking bays
http://i67.tinypic.com/2liu7f7.jpg


The bay, difficult to see in the dark the tiny numbering that makes this bay 'residential only'
http://i68.tinypic.com/2v3j6s2.jpg


The windscreen ticket
http://i63.tinypic.com/28b8h3a.jpg

The visitor permit (the only place which mentions not parking in numbered bays)
http://i67.tinypic.com/34iqsxv.jpg

mnkut

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Woah...it doesn't matter. Read the Jopson case posted this week in this thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5553131

The residents and their visitors have a right of way/easements in most cases and that should be a line of attack even for a tenant. They have a tenancy agreement that gives them certain rights flowing from the leaseholder, even if they don't know exactly what the lease says they know what their tenancy agreement says. I think Ms Jopson was a tenant...not sure, have a read!

Re POPLA, submit it when ready, no point delaying.

Will read in depth tonight. Thank you very much.
And will do a thread search to see if there are any existing POPLA arguments using this to help shape mine!

I suppose my concern was providing evidence of these terms in their tenancy agreement. Could I make this argument at POPLA, without having to provide the terms in the agreement?

Thanks so much

Coupon-mad

The signage is woeful, not prominent, misstates the discounted sum as £65 and hides the charge in the smallest font at the bottom of the sign. It calls it an 'Excess charge' which is a Council term under byelaws (like the word 'penalty') and should not be used as it misleads consumers, gives an impression of authority the parking firm do not have, contrary to the BPA CoP.

The number on the bay could be obscured by anything - e.g. a few leaves, another vehicle, your own car tyre, etc and there is no sign in view at all.

Don't show that permit to POPLA, show the lack of signs to illustrate your appeal.

The template POPLA points are your first point of call - post #3 of the NEWBIES thread.

mnkut

Coupon-mad wrote: »

The signage is woeful, not prominent, misstates the discounted sum as £65 and hides the charge in the smallest font at the bottom of the sign. It calls it an 'Excess charge' which is a Council term under byelaws (like the word 'penalty') and should not be used as it misleads consumers, gives an impression of authority the parking firm do not have, contrary to the BPA CoP.

The number on the bay could be obscured by anything - e.g. a few leaves, another vehicle, your own car tyre, etc and there is no sign in view at all.

Don't show that permit to POPLA, show the lack of signs to illustrate your appeal.

The template POPLA points are your first point of call - post #3 of the NEWBIES thread.

Thank you! I am working on the signage piece as the strongest argument for the POPLA appeal.

as driver liability has been admitted, am i right in saying I cannot include POPLA point blow:
No 'driver' Liability

The arguments I am using for the appeal are:
1. Not prominent signage
2. The signage was not readable in the dark, therefore no valid contract was formed
3. No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers
4. A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served - no Keeper Liability can apply.

Any others you would suggest?

Fruitcake

mnkut wrote: »

Thank you! I am working on the signage piece as the strongest argument for the POPLA appeal.

as driver liability has been admitted, am i right in saying I cannot include POPLA point blow:
No 'driver' Liability

The arguments I am using for the appeal are:
1. Not prominent signage
2. The signage was not readable in the dark, therefore no valid contract was formed
3. No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers
4. A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served - no Keeper Liability can apply.

Any others you would suggest?

You have already been told that you cannot use point 4 as the driver has been identified.

I suggest you replace it with, not the landowner.

Show us the draft appeal before you send it.