POPLA APPEAL LOST despite strong rebuttals to desperate 80 page operator evidence

petere123

Fruitcake wrote: »

A lot of document appears blank.
We really need to know what you put in your initial appeal, what you put in you PoPLA appeal, and what parking lie have said in their rebuttal in order to comment

Blanked out personal info, letters from Parking Eye, photos of reg number etc. Could only delete text, not pages.

POPLA appeal letter here
scribd.com/document/346142935/POPLA-appeal-Charnock-Richard-North[/url]

Original appeal to PE was on medical grounds (pernicious anaemia & neurological meds mean episodes of unpredictable exhaustion).
Slept at services for 2+hrs without ever leaving car.
Provided proof of meds, medical condition etc, which by default identified me as driver. PE rejected appeal as "didn't buy a ticket".

Coupon-mad

OK, so get that rebuttal in and show up to POPLA, all the holes in this pile of old tripe they've filed.

petere123

Thread title now changed and update to POPLA appeal

Umkomaas

petere123 wrote: »

Thread title now changed and update to POPLA appeal

What exactly did POPLA say in dismissing your appeal?

petere123

Assessor seems to have made no reference at all to 33 points of "Comments on Operator Evidence". Dumb, generic evidence. Grrrrr.
Also some points raised in original appeal completely ignored. appeal.

Received from Popla today/B], just 7 days after "Comments on Operator Evidence" submitted
The appellant failed to make an appropriate payment for parking time.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states he contest the charge as the Registered Keeper. The appellant states the operator has not met the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. The appellant has raised landowner authority. The appellant has raised Section 21.3 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. The appellant states the driver was a genuine customer. The appellant has raised unfair parking practices.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The terms and conditions of the site state “Tariffs include the first 2 hours free parking. Please pay for parking at: WH Smith or Petrol Forecourts. Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £100”. The operator has issued a £100 Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to the appellant failing to make an appropriate payment for parking time. The site operates Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras, the operator has provided photographic images of the appellant’s vehicle MW11 UEX entering the site at 15:52, exiting at 18:39; the period of stay was two hours and 46 minutes. The appellant states he contest the charge as the Registered Keeper. The appellant states the operator has not met the requirements of the PoFA 2012. I note the appellant’s comments however, I can see that in the appellants appeal to the operator he has selected himself as the driver. As I know who the driver of the vehicle on the day in question was I no not need to consider whether the requirements of PoFA 2012 were complied with. Operator’s only use PoFA 2012 when it is attempting to transfer liability from the driver of the vehicle to the Registered Keeper of the vehicle. As the appellant named himself as the driver, the operator do not need to transfer liability therefore, they do not need to comply with PoFA 2012. The appellant has raised landowner authority. I note the appellant’s comments however, the operator has provided a witness statement which confirms the operator has the appropriate landowner authority to issue PCN’s on the site in question. The appellant has raised Section 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice. In terms of the technology of the ANPR cameras themselves, the audits the ANPR systems in use by parking operators in order to ensure that they are in good working order and that the data collected is accurate. Independent research has found that the technology is generally accurate. Unless POPLA is presented with sufficient evidence to prove otherwise, we consider the technology was working at the time of the alleged improper parking. The appellant states the driver was a genuine customer. I note the appellant’s comments however, regardless of this parking tariffs still apply. As the appellant failed to make a payment for parking, a PCN was issued correctly. The appellant has raised unfair parking practices. I note the appellant’s comments however, it is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure when they enter a site they have understood and complied with the terms and conditions of the site. If the appellant did not agree with the terms and conditions, there would have been a reasonable opportunity to leave the site before entering into a contract with the operator. The operator has provided a system print out which confirms the appellant failed to make an appropriate payment for parking time. Based upon the evidence provided, I can see that the appellant remained on site therefore, agreeing to comply with the terms and conditions. I am satisfied that the signage clearly informs motorists that a payment for parking should be made. As the appellant remained on site without making a payment for parking, he has failed to comply with the terms and conditions. As such, the PCN was issued correctly

Coupon-mad

Assessor seems to have made no reference at all to 33 points of "Comments on Operator Evidence". Dumb, generic evidence. Grrrrr.

Email POPLA and state the Assessor has clearly not read the comments on the Evidence, so ask why. Specifically ask why the Assessor thinks 'The operator has provided a system print out which confirms the appellant failed to make an appropriate payment for parking time' when the Comments showed that was no such evidence (being undated and without a location on it, this is not evidence). State that this is a complaint about a procedural error and you require another Assessor to review the missed Comments which exposed the 'evidence' as flawed (signs with conflicting tariffs/info, and the useless blank 'White list' as well as the questionable contract signatory whose job title is not as shown). It is clear the Assessor did not have these comments and/or failed to read them and take them into account. Procedural error.

Don't say anything else, don't call the Comments a rebuttal and use the words 'procedural error'.

petere123

Thanks very much CouponMad.
Phonecall and email request for Complaint against Procedural Error done today. Up to 10 day wait.

petere123

And still, after Procedural error complaint, POPLA cherry-pick points, and provide superficial reasoning.
eg signage - majority of signs are around periphery of parking area, not the central area. My 33 point response to Parking Eye's desperate generic "Evidence pack" basically ignored.
The witness statement they refer to was signed by Business Development Manager masquerading a Parking Attendant job title on this occasion (thanks Coupon Mad for bringing my attention to that). But of course that not addressed.
And no name provided for the response I got below (numbers 1-3 added myself for ease of reading)
Where is the justice and possibility of proper scrutiny with these people?


1/ Whilst I note your comments that have been provided in relation to the operator's evidence pack, I am satisfied that the assessor has covered the comments that you have addressed in the decision outcome.


2/ We have referred to the BPA Code of Practice in relation to the signage at the site, and having assessed the photographs that have been provided of the signage, we are satisfied that terms clearly stated that motorists are to pay for parking and that a PCN will be issued for failing to comply with those terms. Although the photographs are dated before the contravention date, you have not provided any evidence to POPLA to suggest that different signs are displayed at the site, and so we can only conclude that those signs are still displayed unless evidence shows otherwise.

3/ The parking operator has provided evidence of a witness statement, confirming that permission is given from the landowner for them to operate on this piece of land. Therefore, the operator has permission to issue PCN's to motorists who park on this land, when this is deemed necessary. On this occasion, you parked without making a payment therefore, you breached the terms and so you were issued with a PCN.

I also note that you have said that the operator cannot provide evidence of having a reasonable cause to request the keeper details from the DVLA. However, as the operator is a member of the BPA, they are entitled to request this information from the DVLA if the driver has not been identified. I also note that in this case, you did identify yourself as the driver and so, liability did not need to be transferred to the keeper of the vehicle.

Ultimately, the decision that has been issued on this case is correct. I understand that this is not the decision that you had hoped for however, this is now the end of POPLA's process and there is no further opportunity to appeal to us.

Yours sincerely

POPLA Team

freester

My first PCN resulted in a kind of similar situation to you. Appealed to Operator with a not very good appeal. Then my POPLA appeal was terrible. I revealed who was driving and used mitigating circumstances and a poor 'didn't see the signage' argument.

Then I found this website (too late). Tried to rebut the generic evidence pack but I think if you've added anything new in this rebuttal it just gets ignored. On the excuse 'no new evidence accepted'.

I can understand your frustration. I'd be tempted (and I did in my case) send a strongly worded letter back when the letters post POPLA rejection start arriving saying:

Thanks for your letter, since appeal and POPLA rejection I have familiarised myself with the BPA Code of Practice. I have determined your signage at this site does not comply. Also thank you for pointing out the Beavis case to me. Again your signage does not compare to the 'clear' signage in this case.

(If they are claiming non-payment results in CCJ point out they are misleading - CCJ only results IF County Court finds against you AND you don't pay up in time.)

Due to this new information I am fully prepared to fight this alleged debt in Small Claims Court. Do not contact me any further unless you issue a Letter Before Claim.

petere123

freester wrote: »

I am fully prepared to fight this alleged debt in Small Claims Court.

Good luck. There is a war brewing here too