P4parking POPLA - admitted liability

mnkut

Coupon-mad wrote: »

So you need to put together a brief set of rebuttal bullet points for POPLA and you only get a few days to do that - six days at best, and you might have to email it if the Portal has closed for 'comments'.

Did P4P not supply you with a copy of the contract? I love their teenage chav-style grammar:

Ok great thanks. they submitted yesterday evening, I have since put together the rebuttal points which I will post on here shortly.

Even though they said "This contract will only be provided to POPLA, as evidence of us having the authority to issue parking charge notices on the location."

They have not submitted the contract, could that be a worthy rebuttal point?



I would like to write something to this belligerent comment but cannot think of anything that doesn't include effing and blinding.

"We would contend that it is too late now to indicate that they are unhappy with the parking charge – this should have been done at the time of accepting the ‘parking contract’ - if the motorist was unhappy with the contract terms, they should not have remained at the location."

mnkut

Any advice or guidance on the below rebuttal points is much appreciated, thanks all
I did try to keep it brief but it was really hard as they ignored so many of the arguements re signage.




Furthermore, I would like to bring the assessor’s attention to another key point P4Parking has failed to address in their evidence letter. That their charge is misstated as £65 on signage, rather than £60 that was on the windscreen ticket. Again, rendering both the signage and contract as invalid.

This potentially explains why the signage they submitted is a pixelated copy that does not enable the assessors to actually see this embarrassing mistake.

I do hope these rebuttals provide clarity to yourself.

Coupon-mad

mnkut wrote: »

They have not submitted the contract, could that be a worthy rebuttal point?

It must be your number one point! Tell POPLA that if they've sent it to them, they had to also send it to you as the appellant and they did not, so they have failed to evidence authority from the landowner.

I would like to write something to this belligerent comment but cannot think of anything that doesn't include effing and blinding.

"We would contend that it is too late now to indicate that they are unhappy with the parking charge – this should have been done at the time of accepting the ‘parking contract’ - if the motorist was unhappy with the contract terms, they should not have remained at the location."

I would leave that as it's standard wording (I think it's taken from some drivel from the BPA). It is just utter rubbish.

mnkut

Coupon-mad wrote: »

It must be your number one point! Tell POPLA that if they've sent it to them, they had to also send it to you as the appellant and they did not, so they have failed to evidence authority from the landowner.

I would leave that as it's standard wording (I think it's taken from some drivel from the BPA). It is just utter rubbish.

Thanks Coupon-Mad, a lifesaver as always. :beer: I put that as my first point, as you suggested.
Will post the outcome on the POPLA thread when I hear back.


I then later realised that P4Parking actually mislead the assessor by trying to hide misstated the charge sums by stating £60 on evidence letter & correspondence but £65 on their signage which they submitted a pixelated copy of!!!

I put this point in bold and underlined. And re attached a clear photo I took to prove.

Is there anyone I can complain to to let them know of this bad practice?

mnkut

Note: wanted to update the thread also thanks everyone!!!

Another successful POPLA appeal - massive thanks to Coupon-Mad!!

POPLA Code: 5163136007
Assessor: Louise Dack

Here's the comments:

"Whilst I note that the appellant has brought forward numerous grounds of appeal, my assessment will be based solely on the appellant stating that the operator having no standing or authority to neither pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers.

The operator has provided POPLA with a copy of the contract between itself and the landowner, however I am not satisfied that this meets the minimum requirements of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice as there is no expiry date.

The contract given was signed in 2011, however due to no expiry date being given I cannot confirm if this is still valid. Upon consideration of the evidence, the operator has failed to provide a copy of a valid contract with the operator. As such, I cannot confirm that the operator has the standing or authority to issue PCNs on the car park. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal."


However I'm quite appalled that POPLA didn't even address P4Parking's abysmal excuse, illegible font, contract formed in darkness, misstating their charge sums on signage, consequently misleading the assessor within their evidence letter and referencing charge sums as an Excess Charge.... POPLA's comments below addressing this:

"When entering private land where parking is permitted, you are entering into a contract with the operator by remaining on this land. The terms and conditions of this land should be displayed around this area. It is essential that these terms are adhered to in order to avoid a PCN; it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that this is the case. The terms and conditions shown on the photographic evidence provided by the operator state ‘’For health and safety and enjoyment of all residents and visitors to xxxx you are politely advised that your vehicle may be issued with a ticketed excess charge when; Parked without displaying a valid permit…If you park on this land contravening the above parking restrictions you are agreeing to pay an excess charge to the sum of £100.’’ A PCN has been issued for the following reasons: the appellant has failed to display a valid permit."

Coupon-mad

mnkut wrote: »

Thanks Coupon-Mad, a lifesaver as always. :beer: I put that as my first point, as you suggested.
Will post the outcome on the POPLA thread when I hear back.

I then later realised that P4Parking actually mislead the assessor by trying to hide misstated the charge sums by stating £60 on evidence letter & correspondence but £65 on their signage which they submitted a pixelated copy of!!!

I put this point in bold and underlined. And re attached a clear photo I took to prove.

Is there anyone I can complain to to let them know of this bad practice?

The DVLA (David Dunford, email found by searching his name here) and 'ISPA' spring to mind.

Well done on the win! :T

CYPER

Wow, my case is exactly the same - same place, same permit, same PPC, same admitted keeper.

Many, many thanks to the OP for writing the appeal, which I will just reuse.
Much appreciated.

CYPER

I won thanks to the people of this forum :beer:

Decision - Successful
Assessor Name - XXXXXX
Assessor summary of operator case
On 17 April 2017 vehicle XXXXXX was issued with a Parking Charge Notice (PCN). This PCN was issued due to the motorist parking in a resident bay with a visitors permit.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised a number of grounds of appeal: 1. Not prominent signage and incorrect wording usage from all car park spaces 2. No standing or authority to pursue charges or form contracts with drivers 3. The charge is unconscionable 4. Charge is incompatible with terms under lease

Assessor supporting rational for decision
I note that the appellant has raised a number of grounds of appeal; however my assessment will focus solely on the operator not having the authority from the landowner to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers. A PCN has been issued for the following reasons: the appellant has parked in a resident bay with a visitors permit. The appellant states he does not believe that the operator has the authority from the land owner to issue Parking Charge Notices. Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice sets out to parking operators that “if you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the land owner (or their appointed agent) … In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges.” The operator has failed to provide POPLA with a copy of the contract between itself and the landowner and as a result, I cannot be satisfied that this meets the minimum requirements of the BPA Code of Practice. By issuing the appellant with a Parking Charge Notice, the operator has implied that the appellant has 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. As the operator has not provided insufficient evidence to POPLA of the landowner authority which they hold, I cannot determine whether they had the permission to pursue charges or form contracts with drivers. Therefore, I can only conclude that the parking charge was issued incorrectly. As such, I am satisfied that the parking charge has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

Coupon-mad

Great - can you also post that in 'POPLA Decisions' the sticky thread at the top of this board please?

Umkomaas

As the operator has not provided insufficient evidence to POPLA of the landowner authority

A double-negative is actually a positive!

If they have not provided insufficient evidence, they must have provided sufficient evidence.

Excuse my ramblings.

Well done @CYPER, job done!