Help With POPLA Appeal - Ethical Parking

Coupon-mad

The NTK appears to have no wording warning of keeper liability, as required under 8(2)f of the POFA Schedule 4, so add that to the point about no keeper liability.

Then, here is a thread where the person has used the up-to-date templates for appeal which are newer than the version you found:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5593421

You should win this easily, show us your next draft POPLA appeal, you can keep the grace periods bit in as well as the NTK/no keeper liability issue as your first two points, but never anything about 'no loss'.

Mattmason999

.dropbox .com / s / 1z31chje0a8mr9g / POPLA % 20 Ref . docx ?dl=0

Mattmason999

I have now removed the bit about disabled bays as this is not relevant to this,

Anything else you can think of?

Coupon-mad

Looking better. I know where to come if I need my house in West Sussex - not a million miles away - rendered, then!

I would add a paragraph as a separate point, that:


Motorbike drivers are offered no method to display a permit or gain authorisation as a visitor - any permit contractual term about displaying on a dashboard/windscreen is void for impossibility, and Ethical have withheld any other method from the signage

There is no sign or any indication at the post where the motorbike was secured, that a permit is needed for bikes. Clearly, a paper permit cannot be displayed, because a motorbike doesn't have a windscreen or secure dashboard like a car does, and nor do Ethical provide or publicise on their signs, any secure method to exempt a visitor's bike. So any alleged 'contract' re motorbikes is void due to impossibility, and also unenforceable due to the misleading business practice of Ethical withholding from residents and visitors, any information about the only way that this could have been overcome.

I did phone up and speak to someone at Ethical at the time and explained the situation to him. I was not the driver, and I did not say who the driver was, but I explained that I owned a visitors permit but didn't put it on his bike as would get stolen, and such a method was unfit for purpose in relation to motorbikes, and that there were no clear terms that a driver would reasonably conclude could relate to a bike. To which his reply was that I needed to get his registration on the exemptions list, for this situation, and if I had read the signs I would be aware of this...and he offered to reduce the ticket to an 'admin fee' of £30. Of course I declined his pseudo-offer, not least because only the driver is liable and I was not the driver, it was a visitor.

I then looked closely at the terms and took a photo of the sign, and it doesn't say anything on there at all - he lied - see photo:

<embed your close up photo into your document, not as a separate attachment, too fiddly for the assessor>

So I phoned him back and told him this, his reply was then 'We don't put it on there as that would be advertising the fact'. This makes no sense, is not made known to residents and it is patently unfair to fail to include such an option as a method of exemption/authorisation, transparently on the signs. This fails the requirement for open dealing, required by all traders under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, and fails the BPA Code of Practice regarding fair dealing and professionalism from operators. It is a secret exemption to have a 'white list' yet this operator refuses to make it known, then after the event they mention it (too late to form a contract - there can have been no breach then) and try to extort £30 from people for not being psychic. How is a visitor, or a resident, possibly supposed to know about this list? I think POPLA may be able to discern that I do not consider that this is the most ethical of parking companies.

Under these circumstances, it would be difficult to reasonably conclude that the PCN can have been properly given to the visitor's motorbike.

Mattmason999

https://www.dropbox.com/s/y0pm8egq7945nlg/POPLA%20Ref.docx?dl=0

I have added the section you mentioned just in front of the Lack of Grace Period and after the operator.

Coupon-mad

Go for it, upload that PDF under 'OTHER' for POPLA to chew over.

Did you add this, I can't check links on this PC:

The NTK appears to have no wording warning of keeper liability, as required under 8(2)f of the POFA Schedule 4, so add that to the point about no keeper liability.

Mattmason999

I have sent it and will keep you posted...

Thank you for all your help.

And yes if you want your house rendered give me a shout

Coupon-mad

Off topic:

Might well do, the house does need rendering and your firm aren't a million miles away, seems to me.

Mattmason999

Is there a time limit that they have to reply back?

On the POPLA website it is still saying that they are waiting for a response from Ethical?

By the way Coupon-Mad we are Brighton Based but cover all of Sussex. and further..

Coupon-mad

It's about 21 days that the PPC has, to submit their case to POPLA (which you would then see on the Portal soon, that's why POPLA sent you a password).

You will get an email from POPLA, either saying that the PPC has submitted their evidence (for you to comment to POPLA on) or that they've given up/not contested. Not long now, but don't count exactly 21 days and jump to conclusions, relax, you don't know when Ethical actually saw your POPLA case, could have been a few days later than when you uploaded it.