Holy Trinity Church Newquay

Redx

lose 3) , you wont win that argument since BARRY BEAVIS lost to PE 2 years ago, so you dont want them to focus on that and bring out the BEAVIS ruling

no idea why that is in there unless you were reading very old popla appeals ?

so no chance with Not a gpeol

TalkGirl_uk

To be honest I was aware we wouldn't win solely on GPEOL but i didn't know it wasn't worth including to support the case. It was added purely as an extra point to support the rest, but will remove it if it is likely to do the opposite. Is there anything else that needs removing?

Edit: At this moment I haven't been able to get any photos of the signage but will keep trying, otherwise I will just photograph the parking ticket and add that. I am presuming there is no need for me to include copies of the original PCN as it is in ParkingEye's best interest to include them and proof.

TalkGirl_uk

Sorry to ask again but i just wanted to be absolutely sure before we sent our appeal off.

Following Redx's comment i have removed the GPEOL paragraph, is there anything else we need to change/remove before sending it off?

Thank you again for all your help so far.

Coupon-mad

The NTK sent appellant arrived 15 days after the alleged event.

That's in time - so don't say that. Look at Schedule 4.

TalkGirl_uk

Is it?! I was told it was 14 days, with the date in question being day zero. I will obviously have a a look at schedule 4 again.

Coupon-mad

I was told it was 14 days, with the date in question being day zero

It is. But if you tell POPLA that the NTK was served 15 days from the parking event, then that can be construed as the same thing (think about it).

TalkGirl_uk

Okay fair enough. So with that am I looking to remove that whole arm of the appeal or just remove the 15day wording?

Beyond that is it okay to go off to POPLA?

Thanks

Coupon-mad

I would remove #1, #3 (definitely!) and remove #6.

None of those will win and will take the Assessor's eye off the ball - you will win on Grace Periods, or PE will not contest that, so have Grace periods as #1, then just the remaining TWO other points.

Your appeal also talks about lighting and illumination, was it dark? If not, remove those words.

TalkGirl_uk

Thanks Coupon-Mad and sorry as i have a couple of extra questions. As advised will remove #3 & #6, they were only add as they were points used on my previous winning appeal and thought they might have just added to the argument.

With regards to section #1. I am somewhat confused as in an earlier comment you mentioned a 'golden ticket at POPLA' because our PCN had no mention of POFA/keeper liability after 29 days. Instead it mentioned "if you were not the driver you should tell us the name and current postal address of driver and pass this notice to them."

Now this could be me misinterpreting what I was meant to include but if i got rid of point 1 (omitting the 15day part) would that not take away that aspect of our appeal? As I said it is likely to be because i have omitted something but i just want to make sure.

Thanks in advance.

Coupon-mad

Oh, I am glad you asked, I didn't realise/completely forgot you had a golden ticket! It is very odd that you did have that style of PCN, there's no reason why they used it for your case as far as I can see.

If so, you need to spell that out to POPLA, by saying that ParkingEye used a non-POFA PCN with nothing on the front or back, about the POFA or 'keeper liability after 29 days' that could meet the mandatory requirements of 9(2)b of Schedule 4. In your case I would embed an image of the front and AND back of the PCN, to prove it (just in case PE decide to submit evidence with the 'wrong' back page template...).

Then you could also add in that the PCN also arrived outside of the 14 day period (but I still wouldn't say it arrived on day 15, personally, don't give that detail)

And then I would add the usual template from the NEWBIES thread, that the appellant has not been shown to be the individual liable (driver).