POPLA Stage and need advise please

Umkomaas

DD1A wrote: »

Could I explain to POPLA and ask them to reset the form??

Call them and ask. If they fob you off, put it in writing to the Lead Adjudicator, John Gallagher.

DD1A

I have called they advised that I get it to them today via email and they have left a note on the system to say I accidentally submitted the online form incorrectly and it'll be coming in via email.

DD1A

The photos of the parking area are 4 years old and the road markings are visible now they are barely visible, dirty and dull

DD1A

I thought we had a pretty good chance for a win anyway with the errors and slips ups they have managed to do so far?

DD1A

POPLA
P O BOX 1270
WARRINGTON
WA4 9RL
07/06/2017 Verification number – *****
Dear Sir/Madam,
I wish to add to the attached notes that the appellant parked in a location that is a private land and all
vehicles parked at the location must comply with parking rules stated on the signage at the location.
As clearly stated by the signage at the location vehicles parked in this area must park within marked
bays only and vehicles parked in the disabled bays must clearly display a valid blue badge in the
windscreen, maximum of 3 hours free parking and no return within 2 hours.
As clearly seen in the pictures see evidence F, F1, F2 and F3 provided by our traffic warden there was
no blue badge in the windscreen of the vehicle at the time when the parking charge was issued,
therefore the warden acted accordingly to the signage of the location, please see evidence B2, F9 and
F10. Signage is allocated throughout the location, making it hard for motorists to miss the rules and
regulations of the location, please see evidence F4-F8 the motorist states that the signage is not
adequate enough for motorists to view and states they are not legitimate signs, however, Parking
Ticketing LTD has regular checks and are monitored by the BPA and have passed the required
standards and practises. Please see evidence E where motorist states that he will not disclose the
driver of the vehicle so the liability falls onto the registered keeper, therefore POFA (2012) is not
relevant. The bay in Which the motorist parked, is in fact a disabled bay as the bricks outlining the bay
are wider to allow for disabled access, please see evidence F2 and F3 where you can note the change
in bricks, Also please refer to evidence g1, G2 and G3 where the bay in question is clearly a disabled
bay. The photograph the motorist has included in his appeal against us of one of the signs is not date
or time stamped and has no proof of where this photograph was taken therefore is not relevant. It
must be also noted that each signage contains customer service number of which the motorist could
have telephoned we would have advised the appellant of the appropriate action to take to ensure
that parking charge notice was not issued.
Supreme Court of the United Kingdom – Landmark court decision
On the 4th November 2015 a landmark judgement was handed down in favour of a parking operator
who took a motorist to court for non-payment of a parking charge. Further details on the case can
be found here - https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc...80-judgment.pdf ). This
case was seen as an important “test case” due to the complex legal arguments used by both sides.
Therefore falls outside “The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999” and also falls
outside Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss.
Further to Case No: B2/2014/2010 In The Court of Appeal on the 23/04/15 between Parking Eye and
Barry Beavis where the Judge ruled that the charge was not extravagant or unconscionable and that the Court should therefore not decline to enforce the Contract.

In light of above we would suggest that the amount sought is fair and propionate and that the
Appellants Appeal based upon GPOL of loss should be dismissed.
We are not able to take into account mitigating circumstances. That an appellant feels he or she had
good reason for breaching the terms of parking is not a reason for which we can allow an appeal.
When parking on private land, a motorist freely enters into an agreement to abide by the conditions
of parking in return for permission to park. It is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure that he or she
abides by any clearly displayed conditions of parking that are clearly displayed on the signs.
Please see the contractual agreement with the land owner of the parking location (B) per signage of
the location “Parking at this location is a contractual notice and you agree with terms and
conditions”. Please note B1 is Terms and Conditions related to contract B. Please refer to Terms and
Conditions B1 – 5.1 this point explain that our contract is for minimum of 12 months from date of
confirmation of patrols and the contract shall continue thereafter for the same period if the client
had not given the company 30 days’ notice of cancellation before the anniversary date.

This post has been edited by D Today, 14:58

Coupon-mad

provided by our traffic warden

LOL! They think they have a 'traffic warden'!

Do an email about the evidence being crap (edging a bay in 'wider bricks' doesn't make it clearly marked as a disabled bay at all!) but don't add new evidence you can't an they won't read comments unless they are brief.

DD1A

There was very little time as POPLA wanted the appeal reply by the end of the day what was sent was,


I am writing to you as I incorrectly entered the wrong data in the replys box and accidently submitted the form. I contacted the POPLA office this morning and a representative said it is ok to email in my response and that a note has been left on the system regarding this error.

I would like to highlight that the PTL’s appeals page of the website (as seen in the evidence they have provided) has 2 fields “Entry Details” and “Driver Details”. The page would not let me submit the form with the driver fields empty so I had to copy and paste the “Entry Details” fields in order for the form to submit.

After a recent visit to the parking area the signage and bay markings do not look in any shape of form like PTL have presented them in their evidence. Their pictures show the year dated 2013 which was when this area had just been developed and everything had not been weathered and worn like they have now 4 years on. I have added pictures of the current sight to my first appeal letter to POPLA.

I would like to point out their failure to comply with the Notice To Keeper which was not at ''debt collection stage'' which I have also covered in my first letter with a copy of the email from BPA. Why do the BPA fail to understand their own CoP? A NTK whether issued by a parking firm or their agent cannot exceed their own which is already exorbitantly inflated.

Private landowners must make "reasonable adjustments" for anyone who qualifies, regardless of whether they have a BB or not.
In fact making a BB a requirement of such could itself be discriminatory.
I would also like to point out that no grace was issued and that the pictures confirm no grace period of at least 10 minutes was applied to the start of parking, and base that on the BPA CoP which defines 11minutes for leaving the space and point out that while the start is undefined, it must be MORE than 10 minutes because more actions are involved - such as locating, reading and deciding to accept the contents of any signs.

Umkomaas

PTL's evidence reads like it was written by a child!

DD1A

totally agree. I didn't mention anything about his time round about the POFA being irrelevant

DD1A

I can safely say it was successful POPLA accepted the appeal