Draft POPLA appeal: any suggestions please?

Tilt

fisherjim wrote: »

No problem, the bus drivers on the old routemasters like you never collected fares either.

Your'e right. But they had clippies. I'm too young to remember them.

What were they like? :cool:

fisherjim

Tilt wrote: »

Your'e right. But they had clippies. I'm too young to remember them.

What were they like? :cool:

Formidable, especially if they clunked you on the head with the ticket machine which was the size of a Mini Cooper!

pappa_golf

and that was just the women clippies!

catfunt

This thread is in danger of being taken seriously off route.
Would have been good if those responsible took their argument somewhere else after the first couple of posts....

So.. back on track...

MrFluffy,

Looks like you have a decent handle on things already.

Usual advice is usually to just send the text in blue from the Newbies thread, and save the more detailed appeal for POPLA.

Others may have more to add.

MrFluffy

Thanks, thought my thread was in danger of getting hijacked there!
I'll use a version of the letter on the newbies thread and see how that goes.

Umkomaas

@OP. Can you confirm that the parking company is ParkingEye of Chorley? The modus op here doesn't fit. It looks like a self ticketing/man on a bike with a camera job?

Does the NtK have a paragraph at the foot of the NtK stating 'If after 29 days.......', or is there a large gap as if an entire paragraph has been removed?

I'll use a version of the letter on the newbies thread and see how that goes.

If it is PE, use only the initial appeal in blue text from the NEWBIES sticky exactly as is, don't even try to adjust it with your lettered points above. PE are much more savvy than you on this, and you're in grave danger of blowing your toes off with an ill-advised appeal like this.

You have already identified the driver all over the above post (you need to seriously edit it).

Going through your intended appeal points:

a) They don't need to if it's a man with a camera
b) If the driver is already identified, the 15 days time limit (for keeper liability) is irrelevant - the driver is liable
c) You need photos
d) Won't fly - on two accounts (1) admission of contravention (2) charge excessive/disproportionate - blown out of the water by PE -v- Beavis.

Tilt

MrFluffy wrote: »

Thanks, thought my thread was in danger of getting hijacked there!
I'll use a version of the letter on the newbies thread and see how that goes.

To clarify for the bus driver, there were loads of caravan parking bays available, so I wasn't depriving anyone else of their space. In fact there were no caravans there!
I'm not denying that I was "improperly" parked. My case is that:
a) They didn't attach a note to the car as they claimed.
b) Following a) they didn't send a PCN through the post within 15 days.
c) The signage didn't state that there would be a charge.
d) The charge is extortionate and massively disproportionate for a duration of less than 10 minutes in a zone that was empty of caravans.

Putting my bus... err, I mean coach driver opinion to one side, I doubt that argument will wash tbh. Just because the bays are empty, dosn't nullify the 'restriction'. By the same logic, you are saying "I could park briefly on pedestrian crossing zig zag markings if there were no pedestrians present".

I would go with Umkomaas on this one.

pappa_golf

a pedestrian crossing is a "legal" thing , a bit of board the size of an a4 piece of paper with only the words caravans only means diddly squat!

signs authorised by the BPA should state a LOT more info , the parking Cos name , address BPA logo , oh and if you forgot , it should say in BOLD BIG WRITING what charge they are levying on you if you break thier "rules"

Tilt

pappa_golf wrote: »

a pedestrian crossing is a "legal" thing , a bit of board the size of an a4 piece of paper with only the words caravans only means diddly squat!

signs authorised by the BPA should state a LOT more info , the parking Cos name , address BPA logo , oh and if you forgot , it should say in BOLD BIG WRITING what charge they are levying on you if you break thier "rules"

Not disputing that. Merely saying that I doubt the grounds of "the bays were empty of caravans" so were fair game, would succeed.

I would agree that (and I stated this before) that the signage must be clear and prominent thus should be the basis of the appeal. And IF they don't comply with the BPA then all the better for the OP.

pappa_golf

ot disputing that. Merely saying that I doubt the grounds of "the bays were empty of caravans" so were fair game, would succeed.



no but the lack of clear signage , that stated what "penalty" was going to be forced on you would .