POPLA Appeal Help

wrighteye1

I have now received the evidence pack from CPPLUS, it it ok to post it on here?

Quentin

Yes. Make sure you cannot be identified from it

wrighteye1

The evidence pack runs to 20 pages so I didn't want to post it all and overwhelm people. Hopefully I've just included the most pertinent parts.
http://i67.tinypic.com/2yvrszr.jpg
http://i66.tinypic.com/34t34lt.jpg
http://i65.tinypic.com/a1pzed.jpg
http://i65.tinypic.com/124hc37.jpg
http://i65.tinypic.com/2akfcd1.jpg
http://i68.tinypic.com/umrep.
http://i65.tinypic.com/10emp1v.jpg

The pack also includes an evidence checklist,an aerial photo of the car park showing where the parking notices are and which car park the car was parked in, photos of entry signs in to the car park, a copy of the PCN and copies of all the correspondence between myself and CPPLUS.

Just taking the picture of the parking notice into account the notice says you must pay a penalty if you;

Park in a non designated area - picture shows the car parked inside a standard parking bay.
Park outside of the marked bays -picture shows the car parked inside a standard parking bay.
Park in these areas as an on duty staff member - driver not a staff member.
Park causing an obstruction - picture shows the car parked inside a standard parking bay.
Parked in a blue badge bay - picture shows the car parked inside a standard parking bay.
Use the car park for any other reason than shopping... - the driver went to shop in Meadowhall.
Park your vehicle and leave the site by other means - no proof of this.

So just on this basis surely the ticket is invalid?

PKandF

I really do detest these con artists. I'm sure those more qualified than I will be along soon to offer their comments, but I'll give my two cents.

1. That "scribble" from Meadowhall at the end of the contract does not give any idea of who that person is, their position, or their authority to sign on behalf of British Land/Meadowhall

2. The signs do not describe any "restricted area".

3. The photos do not give an accurate location as to where the car was parked within the centre, or an accurate proximity to the signs themselves.

There's probably so much more but as I said, I'll leave that to those more experienced! Good luck!

Coupon-mad

I'd say keep the comments as short bullet points (so they are read) and combine what you said below with what PKandF just said above:

Park in a non designated area - picture shows the car parked inside a standard parking bay.
Park outside of the marked bays -picture shows the car parked inside a standard parking bay.
Park in these areas as an on duty staff member - driver not a staff member.
Park causing an obstruction - picture shows the car parked inside a standard parking bay.
Parked in a blue badge bay - picture shows the car parked inside a standard parking bay.
Use the car park for any other reason than shopping... - the driver went to shop in Meadowhall.
Park your vehicle and leave the site by other means - no proof of this.

Can't see how POPLA can possibly find there is any evidence of a breach.

And anyway they can't hold the keeper liable because it's CP Plus, who everyone giving advice on such matters, except Honest John of the Telegraph, knows - can't hold keepers liable!

You might want to also add that the photo purporting to show a 'terms and conditions sign in relation to the vehicle' evidences no such thing, and the white blur (if it even is a sign) could be an advert for an end of Summer sales at the shops, or a sign for the stairs/lift, for all we know.

And that the letter is just a letter created by CP Plus themselves, with no date of, or witnessing of, the scribbled 'signature' (unnamed person & position, as PKandF rightly says). That's not the contract purportedly dated in 2016 (no expiry date known, no terms and definitions and restrictions known) and ''Meadowhall'' are not the landowner, British Land is.

And it says to the recipient, Meadowhall, at the end, that any court claims would be ''on your behalf'' which gives away that the contract cannot possibly be held to meet the BPA CoP, in that such contract MUST state that the parking operator is authorised to undertake claims in their OWN name, not as an agent ''on behalf of'' the landowner. An agent with that lowly status, can't sue.

wrighteye1

Thanks again for all the advice, I have submitted my comments using what has been suggested above and will let you know of the outcome as soon as I receive it.

RobinofLoxley

Some of the stuff CP Plus are putting forward as evidence is laughable and amateurish.

As Coupon-mad pointed out the photo showing the car and the supposed signs a long way from it, is a joke. Nice red boxes but where are the signs?


As for the statements made by CP Plus here'

"The PCN was affixed on the vehicle on the day of the parking event - photos enclosed"
Can't see a PCN on the car in that photo.

"I have enclosed the landowner sign contractor"
Eh, what's that?

"On the date of the incident the appellant had parked in a restricted area and had breached the terms and conditions of the site". They've copied this sentence twice!

The appellant is the keeper, they falsely claim that the keeper had parked.
There is no such term as "restricted area" in their T & C's and the photos offer no evidence that the car was in a restricted area.

The grammar leaves a lot to be desired.

[/B]

nosferatu1001

even better, the photos show the car parked in a normal car parking space with absolutely nothing to indicate the area was restrictured in anyway.

RobinofLoxley

Exactly, no markings around the bays to say it's a restricted area.

Also is the photo date and time stamped, as required. I can't see anything.

wrighteye1

The photos are time and date stamped, they must have been cropped out when I posted them. There is also a photo in the evidence pack showing the PCN attached to the windscreen, I just didn't post everything as I didn't want to put people off looking at it!
If anybody wants to see everything they included I'll gladly post the rest.