Popla appeal

Rebecca1811

I don't have a Dropbox account but I've tried saving the links or copying them to word so I can upload them here and they won't allow me to save, I've just read lots of other responses from evidence packs and I have edited the one I've posted, do you think that's suitable am I on the right track ?

Coupon-mad

Make a free photobucket or tinypic account then, that's what others do, as you will see on other threads.

Rebecca1811

I downloaded BOTH accounts but both keep saying not supported file I've tried saving them from pdf to other documents but ACTION NOT ALLOWED is is definitely testing my nerves.

can someone please proof read my post #25 and tell me if I can submit that or I will get nowhere.

they have just sent picture mainly of signage they say they have included something to show they manage the car park but I cant see anything

Rebecca1811

I've studied the eve since very closely and the signage is terrible I even struggled to notice the anpr when zooming to maximum level


I have edited my previous post I think this addresses all there points...any advice ?



Gemini Have submitted a ‘evidence’ pack in support of their speculative and disputed invoice. I do not intend to address each and every point they have raised in detail as their submission is clearly a quickly hashed template, muchof which is repetitive or indeed irrelevant to the matter at hand.

In making their assessment I ask the POPLA assessor to consider the following in further support of my original POPLA appeal.

1. There is no Genuine Pre-estimated of Loss breakdown included to show how they have come up with £100: As business costs are not losses and they cannot be passed down to a motorist as GPEOL. Gemini seem to infer that it is up to me to demonstrate how their £100 is not a GPEOL - I am not sure this is possible and in any case the burden of proof is upon Gemini to demonstrate the loss that has occurred as a result of the alleged breach.Despite submitting this huge 'evidence' pack they have failed to do this.



2. There seems to be no copy of anunredacted contract included between Gemini and the Car Park, which could include information about 'money changing hands' in the contract - thus hiding information that could be relevant to the costs calculation fails to meet thestrict proof of contract terms needed.



3. Signage- The colours blue and yellow arespecifically mentioned in the BPA Code of Practice as the sort of bright colour contrasts to avoid. Use of capital letters and mixing large and small font arealso deemed unclear as far as signage is concerned. Gemini have mixed this intotheir signs despite the fact they appear to be new and should match the requirements of the BPA CoP.
Furthermore it simply would not be possible to read any signs whilst in amoving car, and certainly not have read them sufficiently to have be deemed tofully understand the T&C's to which it is alleged I agreed as theregistered keeper of the vehicle. Gemini 's own 'evidence' photos show that anumber of the signs are perpendicular to the flow of traffic and as the driver never left the car park wouldn’t have seen the signs as they are on pillars or in the stairwell upon exits leaving the car park to enter the hospital.

4.The ANPR signage they have is very small and displays in the bottom corner of a the pictures they have submitted and is of the smallest font, no driver could see those signs whilst in a moving vehicle and would also struggle to see it when looking at signs.


Regards

Coupon-mad

1. There is no Genuine Pre-estimated of Loss breakdown included to show how they have come up with £100: As business costs are not losses and they cannot be passed down to a motorist as GPEOL. Gemini seem to infer that it is up to me to demonstrate how their £100 is not a GPEOL - I am not sure this is possible and in any case the burden of proof is upon Gemini to demonstrate the loss that has occurred as a result of the alleged breach.Despite submitting this huge 'evidence' pack they have failed to do this.

Nope, remove that entirely unless you want to lose. Anything about no 'GPEOL' has no place on any parking appeal, since 2015 (Beavis case). You've been reading some old threads, I fear.

again, remove the talk about 'costs' here:

2. There seems to be no copy of an unredacted contract included between Gemini and the Car Park, [STRIKE]which could include information about 'money changing hands' in the contract - thus hiding information that could be relevant to the costs calculation fails to meet thestrict proof of contract terms needed[/STRIKE].

Have Gemini included nothing at all, that looks like a service agreement or witness statement from the landowner?

Rebecca1811

No, just pictures from the car park regarding signage and anpr,and my first appeal and their response. There's a link that won't open but nothing that states anything regarding landowner.

I found these post from 2016

Coupon-mad

OK, as long as your appeal talked about 'no landowner authority' and they never evidenced that, you will win on that basis.

Rebecca1811

I've just called popla who have checked over the evidence and definitely no landowner Authority included in their evidence pack!
Thought I was missing something....

Coupon-mad

hahaha, that's great! As long as your appeal mentioned that point, you win.

Rebecca1811

Is this acceptable?



Gemini Have submitted a ‘evidence’ pack in support of their speculative and disputed invoice. I do not intend to address each and every point they have raised in detail as their submission is clearly a quickly hashed template, muchof which is repetitive or indeed irrelevant to the matter at hand.

In making their assessment I ask the POPLA assessor to consider the following in further support of my original POPLA appeal.

1. There is no Genuine Pre-estimated Loss breakdown included to show how they have come up with £100 charge.


2. There seems to be no copy of anunredacted contract included between Gemini and the Car Park, even though it was requested in my original appeal.

3. Signage- The colours blue and yellow arespecifically mentioned in the BPA Code of Practice as the sort of bright colour contrasts to avoid. Use of capital letters and mixing large and small font arealso deemed unclear as far as signage is concerned. Gemini have mixed this intotheir signs despite the fact they appear to be new and should match the requirements of the BPA CoP.
Furthermore it simply would not be possible to read any signs whilst in amoving car, and certainly not have read them sufficiently to have be deemed tofully understand the T&C's to which it is alleged I agreed as theregistered keeper of the vehicle. Gemini 's own 'evidence' photos show that anumber of the signs are perpendicular to the flow of traffic and as the driver never left the car park wouldn’t have seen the signs as they are on pillars or in the stairwell upon exits leaving the car park to enter the hospital.

4.The ANPR signage they have is very small and displays in the bottom corner of a the pictures they have submitted and is of the smallest font, no driver could see those signs whilst in a moving vehicle and would also struggle to see it when looking at signs.


Regards