POPLA appeal help please?

Saeed

Have you written to Waitrose? Under the Equality Act both the PPC and Waitrose could be held liable for discrimination.

Umkomaas

Without Prejudice

Why are you making this a 'Without Prejudice' document?

UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE EQUALITY ACT 2010

POPLA won't touch this.

NO EVIDENCE OF LANDOWNER AUTHORITY

I'd push this up the pecking order to follow the 'No Keeper Liability' appeal point.

LynseyDull

Saeed, I contacted Waitrose but they don't own the land so claim it's nothing to do with them. I then contacted Savills who are the landowner but they are studiously ignoring my emails.
I figured that if the POPLA appeal fails then I get back to Waitrose and the local press?

Umkomaas, not sure why I've left Without Prejudice on it...I thought that meant that it couldn't be used against us in court? Thanks for the tips. Still surely worth including the point on disability discrimination though?

Umkomaas

Umkomaas, not sure why I've left Without Prejudice on it...I thought that meant that it couldn't be used against us in court? Thanks for the tips. Still surely worth including the point on disability discrimination though?

Why would you not want the court to see this?

By all means include the EA stuff for Smart to deal with at POPLA (gives them more reasons to opt out and drop this), but we've never seen the current POPLA, or its predecessor, ever adjudicate on an EA 2010 issue. They always swerve it!

I then contacted Savills who are the landowner but they are studiously ignoring my emails.

Have you complained to them on the back of the EA 2010? That's where the potential soft underbelly lies. Threaten them with a court action against them on the basis that they are jointly and severally liable for the actions of their agents (Smart) in the context of the EA.

Coupon-mad

Remove this, it goes nowhere at POPLA:

INACCURATE ANPR

and replace it with the template appeal point from post #3 of the NEWBIES thread, that the operator has not shown that the appellant keeper is the person liable (driver).

I would also remove this because it tells POPLA a bit more than a keeper wants to...almost implies the driver:

As a last point, in its rebuttal of my appeal, the operator completely ignores the fact of my disability. This in and of itself is inherently disrespectful, all the more so because on receiving my data from the DVLA they will have been informed that the vehicle in question is a Motability car.

Saeed

Umkomaas wrote: »

Why would you not want the court to see this?

By all means include the EA stuff for Smart to deal with at POPLA (gives them more reasons to opt out and drop this), but we've never seen the current POPLA, or its predecessor, ever adjudicate on an EA 2010 issue. They always swerve it!


Have you complained to them on the back of the EA 2010? That's where the potential soft underbelly lies. Threaten them with a court action against them on the basis that they are jointly and severally liable for the actions of their agents (Smart) in the context of the EA.

Yes, complain to the landowner/holder immediately, do this in writing, it's better to try to nip it in the bud than go down the legal route. I am going through something similar and it's a tough process. Therefore, (1) write to the landowner asking them to ask their agents to drop the matter and reminding them about their responsibility under the Equality Act and that the they will be held responsible for the conduct of their agents and (2) file your PoPLA so that you have 2 pronged action and hopefully one or the other may rule in your favour and cancel the PCN.

LynseyDull

Thanks everyone for your help and advice, appeal submitted as per Parking Prankster's advice, fingers crossed!