Incorrect signage?

claxtome

If I lose the POPLA apppeal, I presume I will then have to pay £100, or embark on the lengthy process that could lead to court action (which I don't want to do).

If you lose at POPLA they may not want to proceed to court.
Got 6 years to pursue.

This forum has a great record.
Last year 99% of cases who listened to advice won.
Been at least 3 wins is year already.
If it was me I wouldn't want to give them a penny of my hard earned money

waamo

Have you read the post above yours?

Coupon-mad

scamdodger wrote: »

Thanks for the responses, which I do appreciate.
Should I reluctantly fork out the £60, or appeal with POPLA?
If I lose the POPLA apppeal, I presume I will then have to pay £100, or embark on the lengthy process that could lead to court action (which I don't want to do).
I feel that unless anyone can give me reasonable hope of winning the POPLA appeal with the evidence I have outlined, I am inclined to pay the £60 to make it go away.

As I said, we win 99% of the time. Are you not listening? You want to pay a scam?

scamdodger

If you lose at POPLA they may not want to proceed to court.
Got 6 years to pursue.

Agreed, but do I want this hanging over me for the next 6 years?

As I said, we win 99% of the time. Are you not listening? You want to pay a scam?

I am listening and I certainly do not want to pay, but nobody has indicated the percentage chances of winning a POPLA appeal on the evidence (or lack of) presented. I appreciate you win 99% of the time, but at what cost, in terms of time and effort to fully defend against one of the most litigious PPC's? I'm sorry if I sound a bit negative and no doubt I am annoying some of the forum members here! I welcome the comments about forbidding signage and distress, but are these points likely to be taken into account by POPLA or would they be used later on in the process, assuming it gets as far as court?
Yours, indecisively,
Scamdodger.

nosferatu1001

Pay if you want

However in doing so you fund the parasites to chase people who cannot afford to just pay up. Elderly, people visiting sick relatives in hospital, etc.

Choose what your conscious allows.

muleskinner

scamdodger wrote: »

I appreciate you win 99% of the time, but at what cost, in terms of time and effort to fully defend against one of the most litigious PPC's?.

Frankly, if you do a simple cost/benefit analysis it will probably not be worth your while and you should just pay the £60.

However, if you want to help stand up against a rotten industry that is basically legalised extortion and, by so doing, help others in the same situation and potentially improve things for everyone in the long-term then that is what you get for your time and effort.

Think what these scammers are doing. It's a threat - pure and simple. Pay us £60/£100 or we'll cause you considerable grief and waste loads of your time over the next year or two. Pretty much a !!!!! protection racket. Personally I hate bullies and scammers enough to put in the time and effort to defend myself against them, but I appreciate that some people simply don't have the time and resource to do this even if they wanted to.

I'm afraid I can't help you as to what POPLA might say, relative noob here.

Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Thing is, with new signs they are meant to put up extra ones, so people familiar with the car park notice them. I think it's in the BPA CoP and is a good point for POPLA.

I welcome the comments about forbidding signage and distress, but are these points likely to be taken into account by POPLA

Forbidding signage, no, POPLA don't get it, but 'the driver was distressed and saw NO signs' (as in Vine v Waltham Forest), yes. But only if you take time to explain it to POPLA as they aren't legally trained, will not be likely to have any clue that Vine was won because she was ill and didn't see the signs...unless you show them.

Search the forum for Miss Vine as this has been written into defences & POPLA appeals before.

having said that, don't rely on a single point appeal! PE often drop out just because they hate loooong POPLA appeals...even just adding in tons of stuff can win it for you, because it's not worth their while in man/woman hours, to contest it.

muleskinner

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Forbidding signage, no, POPLA don't get it, but 'the driver was distressed and saw NO signs' (as in Vine v Waltham Forest), yes. But only if you take time to explain it to POPLA as they aren't legally trained, will not be likely to have any clue that Vine was won because she was ill and didn't see the signs...unless you show them.

My reading of Vine is that the fact she was ill was a contributing factor in her favour (and she may have won on that basis alone), but also that the positioning of the signage alone would have been enough to win the case for her. Am I wrong in my interpretation?

I would also find, if it were necessary to the decision, that the sign in this case was not sufficiently prominently and clearly positioned and displayed to sustain any contention that she consented to, or willingly assumed, the risk of her vehicle being clamped. In so far as this would be a finding of fact which differed from anything found by the recorder, I derive it from the photographs and the plan which show the area and the sign as clearly to this court as they were shown to the recorder. It was not intrinsically obvious, apart from signs, that the area where Mrs Vine parked was private property. It might have been part of the highway. The sign, which Roch L.J. has described, was on the wall beside the second of two bays and was not on the occasion in question visible from the driver’s seat of Mrs Vine’s car when she parked it in the first bay because a van parked in front of her blocked the view

The_Deep

In my opinion, PE signs often contain masses of T&C in very small print. Can the MOTCO be expected to read it all before parking for a few minutes? I think that a judge may think "too much information".r

Coupon-mad

My reading of Vine is that the fact she was ill was a contributing factor in her favour (and she may have won on that basis alone), but also that the positioning of the signage alone would have been enough to win the case for her. Am I wrong in my interpretation?

That's correct.