Premier Park St Mary's Church POPLA Evidence Comments

Coupon-mad

You are quite likely not to win a Premier Park one at POPLA (so what, really?!). See the other ones with posts yesterday, where an OP just lost at POPLA...and so what...again!

But for that reason, make your comments robust, in particular if they've heavily redacted the landowner contract/removed names and signatures, and if the definitions and restrictions and exemptions about parking rules are just not shown in that contract. Also if it looks to have possibly expired, point that out to POPLA (no expiry date on contract).

jonb237

Umkomaas and Coupon-Mad how would the statement below fair?

The evidence states ‘When payment is made at the machine, the motorist must enter the full vehicle registration, validate what has been entered before proceeding with the payment.’ This process is not stated in the BPA code of practice. The BPA code of practice does state that the signage establishes a parking contract. The signage at the parking site with pictures provided in the evidence has no mention of that the contractee must provide the full vehicle registration which the basis of how the parking charge notice was issued. If the signage does not state a full vehicle registration must be provided and the operator issues parking charge notice on the basis of the contractee providing a full vehicle registration, the contractee is at a distinct disadvantage and the operator’s business practice is flawed. The process of the operator issuing a parking charge notice to the contractee is for the benefit of the operator only as they have issued the PCN under parameters not stated on the signage.

I ask that the evidence for landownership agreement be dismissed as the document has been heavily redacted in Section 2 The Service, Section 3 Debt Recovery/Legal Action, Section 4 Site Specific Conditions, Section 5 Parking Charge Notice (PCN), Section 8 POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals), Section 9 Signs & Equipment, Section 10 Collected Parking Charge Notices (PCN) / Pay & Display revenue, Section 11 Implementation & Annual Support Costs, Section 13 Insurance, Section 14 Health and Safety, Section 15 Data Protection, Section 16 Terminating the Agreement, Section 17 General Contract Terms and the signatory names have been redacted. As most of this document is redacted, we cannot come to the conclusion that the operator has the relevant authority to enforce the parking site.

Should I include this statement below?

Nevertheless, the relevant parking ticket was paid under vehicle registration “XXXX XXX” and therefore the parking charge should not have been issued.

pappa_golf

jonb237 wrote: »

The sign has a section called 'Pay at Machine' with a picture underneath to show what to do by steps. Step 1 has some text 'Enter Your Full Registration Number'

you did enter YOUR full registration number tho ,,,,,

Umkomaas

Sorry, but as I said my iPad yesterday was struggling with the images (away from home relying on super-slow broadband). I can now see there is reference to entering the VRM.

jonb237

you did enter YOUR full registration number tho ,,,,,

Does explaining this to the operator or POPLA state who the driver is?

[Deleted User]

Nevertheless, the relevant parking ticket was paid under vehicle registration “XXXX XXX” and therefore the parking charge should not have been issued. Mistakenly entering the vehicle registration of a second car is not an unusual occurrence.]The request to input registration details are only a device to assist with the marrying up of payments. In this instance the defendant has clearly paid, can produce evidence of payment (and of ownership of a vehicle listed in the claimants own schedule of payments). The claimant has suffered no loss.

jonb237

Sorry, but as I said my iPad yesterday was struggling with the images (away from home relying on super-slow broadband). I can now see there is reference to entering the VRM.

I did wonder but thought there was some sort of legalese that needed to be on the signage. Should of asked, sorry.

jonb237

Nevertheless, the relevant parking ticket was paid under vehicle registration “XXXX XXX” and therefore the parking charge should not have been issued. Mistakenly entering the vehicle registration of a second car is not an unusual occurrence.]The request to input registration details are only a device to assist with the marrying up of payments. In this instance the defendant has clearly paid, can produce evidence of payment (and of ownership of a vehicle listed in the claimants own schedule of payments). The claimant has suffered no loss.

This is good.

[Deleted User]

See where you get to. It's a big ask in due course for the court to order £300 when payment is made.

Coupon-mad

Just my thoughts - I would never say to POPLA 'The claimant has suffered no loss' because we know the clueless Assessor armed only with templates (it seems) then use the ''Beavis case beats all, you can't argue 'no GPEOL' because the BPA told us, and we believe them and they are our paymasters, so get stuffed you oik'' rejection template.