Draft POPLA appeal: any suggestions please?

Umkomaas

I'd rely on the template appeal from the NEWBIES sticky, then there's absolutely no prospect of identifying the driver or even hinting at any culpability.

Neither will result in a cancellation, but with the sticky, there's nothing that PE could lay on you at the POPLA (or any later) stage. The dog walk won't help you whatsoever!

Castle

Umkomaas wrote: »

I'd rely on the template appeal from the NEWBIES sticky, then there's absolutely no prospect of identifying the driver or even hinting at any culpability.

Neither will result in a cancellation, but with the sticky, there's nothing that PE could lay on you at the POPLA (or any later) stage. The dog walk won't help you whatsoever!

Unless the Dog was driving:)

Quentin

MrFluffy wrote: »

OK, thanks to all for the advice. I'll bin my original letter and use the newbie template in order to get a POPLA review........

All good, but why are you ignoring the important advice you have been given to edit from your posts all references to who was driving??


The PPCs do monitor this forum!

MrFluffy

Appeal sent as per the template letter.
Awaiting rejection...

MrFluffy

Well, as expected, PE has rejected my appeal based on the standard template letter.

I have put together the following appeal to POPLA from other examples, amended to suit my individual case. I'd be grateful if somebody could look it over and advise. Cheers.

Ref: ParkingEye Charge Notice xxxxxxxx

POPLA Appeal Number xxxxxxx


[FONT=&quot]A notice to keeper was received by me, the registered keeper of the vehicle, registration number xxxxxxx on November 11th 2016, for alleged “unauthorised parking” on 7th October 2016 at xxxxxxxxxxxx. I have appealed directly to ParkingEye and they have rejected my appeal, therefore I am writing to you and would be grateful if you would please consider my appeal for the following reasons.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] ParkingEye stated in their original Notice To Keeper that a notice to driver was affixed to the vehicle at the time of the alleged incident. This is incorrect; no such notice was affixed, as ParkingEye’s own photographs easily confirm. In my opinion, this illustrates that ParkingEye’s case relating to this incident is shoddily and carelessly constructed.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The time stamps on ParkingEye’s photographs show that the first photograph was taken at 11:27, and the last one, showing that the parking space had been vacated, was taken at 11:33. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that the duration of the parking period was no longer than six minutes – or at least no proof to the contrary can be offered. I would argue that it is reasonable to expect a grace period to be allowed before imposing such an unreasonably large penalty charge.[/FONT]

3. ParkingEye asserts that the signage at the parking area is adequate, visible, appropriately located and legible. However, the only photographic evidence of this that they have submitted shows a sign that merely states that the area where the vehicle was parked is for caravans only. T[FONT=&quot]he sign does not state that any charge will be applied to any other vehicles that park in one of those spaces, and no such signage was apparent.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Had the driver been aware of the possibility of such a charge, the car would obviously not have been parked there.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I therefore contend that the signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](Link removed)

In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.

This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge. There are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':

(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](link removed)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made because the fact remains I am only the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

The burden of proof rests with the Operator, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA 2012 was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

Understanding keeper liability

“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass."

Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
"I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal."[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

Coupon-mad

I didn't see 'no landowner authority' there and you can go to town on grace periods like in this example:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/71730000#Comment_71730000

And your point #1 needs to explain why no proof of a windscreen PCN means there can be no keeper liability, by quoting from paragraph 6 and 8/9 of the POFA Schedule 4 and explaining that without a windscreen PCN, para 6 has not been met and neither can para 8 or 9 be met by a lone postal PCN served after a month.

MrFluffy

Thanks for taking the time to review my draft, coupon-mad.

I've added in the sections you suggested, and below is the latest draft. I hope it's OK.

Ref: ParkingEye Charge Notice xxxxxxx

POPLA Appeal Number xxxxxxx


[FONT=&quot]A notice to keeper was received by me, the registered keeper of the vehicle, registration number xxxx, on November 11th 2016, for alleged “unauthorised parking” on 7th October 2016 at xxxxxxxx I have appealed directly to ParkingEye and they have rejected my appeal, therefore I am writing to you and would be grateful if you would please consider my appeal for the following reasons.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1. No Notice Affixed to Vehicle[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]ParkingEye stated in their original Notice To Keeper that a notice to driver was affixed to the vehicle at the time of the alleged incident. This is incorrect; no such notice was affixed,asParkingEye’s own photographs easily confirm.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]As ParkingEye[/FONT][FONT=&quot]alleges 'keeper liability' under the POFA 2012, a postal PCN has to arrive by day 15 if there was no windscreen ticket. This they have failed to do, as the postal PCN was not received until over a month after the alleged incident.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]No proof of a windscreen PCN means there can be no keeper liability, as per paragraph 6 and 8/9 of the POFA Schedule 4. Without a windscreen PCN, paragraph 6 has not been met and neither can paragraphs 8 or 9 be met by a lone postal PCN served after a month.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In my opinion, this illustrates that ParkingEye’s case relating to this incident is shoddily and carelessly constructed.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2. Insufficient Grace Period Allowed[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The time stamps on ParkingEye’s photographs show that the first photograph was taken at 11:27, and the last one, showing that the parking space had been vacated, was taken at 11:33. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that the duration of the parking period was no longer than six minutes – or at least no proof to the contrary can be offered. I would argue that it is reasonable to expect a grace period to be allowed before imposing such an unreasonably large penalty charge.

The BPA Code of Practice (CoP) makes it mandatory for operators to allow grace periods at the start and end of parking, before enforcement action can be taken.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The CoP states:

13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go...
The first grace/observation period must be allowed to allow the time taken to arrive, find a parking bay, lock the car and go over to any machine to read & observe the signage terms, before paying.

Kelvin Reynolds of the BPA says there is a difference between ‘grace’ periods and ‘observation’ periods in parking and that good practice allows for this:
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](link removed)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Good car parking practice includes ‘grace’ periods
“An observation period is the time when an enforcement officer should be able to determine what the motorist intends to do once in the car park. The BPA’s guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator’s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket,” he explains.

“No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.”

The BPA (Kelvin Reynolds is the Director of Policy & Public Affairs) is on record as shown above, as saying that the 'observation period' at the start might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes, depending on various factors. As I stated above, for the parking event in question, the period between the first recorded time and the last is just 6 minutes.

Taking both BPA 'Observation' and 'Grace' Periods into account, I contend that the PCN was not properly given.[/FONT]

3. Inadequate Signage

ParkingEye asserts that the signage at the parking area is adequate, visible, appropriately located and legible. However, the only photographic evidence of this that they have submitted shows a sign that merely states that the area where the vehicle was parked is for caravans only. T[FONT=&quot]he sign does not state that any charge will be applied to any other vehicles that park in one of those spaces, or the amount of any such charge, and no such signage was apparent.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Had the driver been aware of the possibility of such a charge, the car would obviously not have been parked there. For clarification, I attach a photograph of the sign submitted by ParkingEye:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][IMG]file://localhost/private/var/folders/g4/97d74plx07s2dzb9mhvs8_4h0000gp/T/TemporaryItems/msoclip/0/clip_image002.png[/IMG][/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I therefore contend that the signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](link removed)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.

This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge. There are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':

(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](link removed)
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4. Keeper Liability[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made because the fact remains I am only the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

The burden of proof rests with the Operator, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA 2012 was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

Understanding keeper liability

“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass."

Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
"I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal."[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5. No evidence of Landowner Authority[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
The operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).
Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.
Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot
be assumed to be the sum on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).
Paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:
7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.
7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:
a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]6. Failure of Parking Eye to follow the BPA code of practice[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The final example of ParkingEye’s numerous failures to adhere in this case to the British Parking Associations code of practice, by which they are obliged to abide, finds them in contravention of clause 22.8 of the Code, which states that members of the BPA must “acknowledge or reply to the challenge within 14 days of receiving it”. The initial appeal was lodged online on Parking Eye’s site on 14/11/2016, yet Parking Eye’s response was not written until 30/11/2016, when they rejected the initial appeal.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

Coupon-mad

Yes that should be enough if there was no windscreen PCN.

Is this link actually embedded in your word document as an illustration, as it should be:

file://localhost/private/var/folders/g4/97d74plx07s2dzb9mhvs8_4h0000gp/T/TemporaryItems/msoclip/0/clip_image002.png

because as a link it doesn't work - and POPLA won't search for it.

So, save the appeal with the pictures showing in it like a storybook, saved as a PDF. Then appeal under OTHER (only) on the POPLA webpage and upload the PDF as your appeal, making sure it morphs into a little 'bin' icon before you submit the appeal finally.

MrFluffy

OK, appeal sent.
Many thanks for taking the time to provide your input; it is greatly appreciated.

Coupon-mad

Appeal won - PE bailed out - well done!