Newbie questions

doubled1989

signs are for the same carpark. To be honest I am struggling a bit, they seem to have rebutted it with many good pictures and a (admittedly very shoddy looking) agreement, which to me looks old/handwirtten. They have attached lots of evidence, can I post it here for review?

Also is it too late to get the retail owner to cancel? only figured out who it was the other day but think it is too late.

Thnx

KeithP

doubled1989 wrote: »

Also is it too late to get the retail owner to cancel? only figured out who it was the other day but think it is too late.

It costs nothing to try.

Coupon-mad

Same advice applies as you will have read when you (hopefully) searched for all the zillions of other threads talking about comments on POPLA evidence. So much already here, and we just get a bit tired of repeating it.

Search for those obvious words and change the default to 'show posts'. NOT THREADS!

Object, but make your comments SHORT and bullet points, no reiterating your appeal. You have 2000 characters (NOT WORDS!) in the portal.

Anecdotally, it is best to use the POPLA portal, not email IMHO.

I believe an Assessor will read Portal comments but maybe not even get to see a long email sent randomly to POPLA, and certainly NOT if you repeat the appeal, add evidence, or are not concise at this 'final word' stage.

Go for that contract, look at dates, start date, end date? Signatories? Who are they?

Is the contract redacted/obscured, if so, suggest that the detail of the contract is hidden, even such essential information as to the contraventions, the charge, the days/times of enforcement, any exemptions, etc. For all POPLA know, it could say that the restrictions only apply on certain days of the week, or between certain times of operation, or that all red cars are exempt, or that there is a 45 minute grace period. Who knows?

doubled1989

Thanks for the help. I find it impossible to cut this down to 2000 characters. Can I PDF it? Can I post it on here for a quick glance through?

KeithP

doubled1989 wrote: »

Thanks for the help. I find it impossible to cut this down to 2000 characters. Can I PDF it? Can I post it on here for a quick glance through?

You can do both, or either, of those things.

Coupon-mad

No you don't email a PDF, I said already anecdotal evidence tells us use the Portal.

Surely you've read some other threads from this month where we've petty much forced OPS to cut their story down to bullet points. Can be done, MUST be done.

You should only be talking about the contract, and the signs, usually.

NOTHING ELSE in most comments, it is not for restating the stuff that won't win (e.g. POFA).

doubled1989

I have read it and your anecdote and other thread sad nauseum for hours (5 so far). I have ONLY talked about contract and signs. Please see below and let me know where you can see things to cut out. So far it has reached the 2nd bullet in point 2 before it cuts out. I cannot cut this out from what I can see anymore. They should not give this little characters to fight back with. Please see below and any help appreciated:

Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

The evidence pack!!; that Britannia Parking (BP) supplied regarding POPLA Appeal, it clear it doesn;t acknowledge any of the arguments put forth in the original appeals.
In response to the pack, the following:

1. No legible, unredacted landowner contract
2. Poor signage that does not comply with BPA:CoP

1. No legible, unredacted landowner contract
BP failed to provide a legible, unredacted and enforceable contract which states the T&Cs in which they operate in.
Unclear from the provided, where the supposed contract is enforced and what area are included
No specific site is given, instead a stretch of road.
No valid and legible signatories, handwritten dates and no customer or signees.
; No essential information as to the contraventions, the charge, the days/times of enforcement, any exemptions.

Paragraph 7 of BPA CoP - mandatory requirements:

;7.2 operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner
7.3 The written authorisation must also set out: the definition of the land on which you operate, so boundaries are clearly defined
7.2 - unclear and illegible who has given the authority, if any at all.
7.3 - the plan/boundaries/land is illegible, no clear boundaries or markings as to where the enforced area is.


2. Poor signage that does not comply with BPA:CoP

Illegibility of signage is in direct breach of the British Parking Association: Code of Practice (BPA:CoP) this particular sentence of Section 18, Paragraph 3 (S18P3):

Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.

;Impossible to read all of the signage as the text was too small, the signs were too far away and clearly obscured (as evidenced by appeal photos).
Page 8 of BP evidence pack supports this, proves signs are too far away, unremarkable, and easily obscured.
Supports argument because impossible to read the fine print text in the stock signage images
Zoom into the images of the signs to read the fine print, it gets too blurry to read which makes the complete understanding of the sign impossible to ascertain, therefore breaching S18P3.
Following as quoted from Appendix B (Entrance Signs) in the BPA CoP are not adhered too, clearly seen from evidence:
There must be at least one item from Group 1. But;. Group 1 Pay and display [except/free for blue badge holders] [x minuteshour!s/hours!!!] free parking [for [business name] customers only] Pay on exit Pay [on foot/at machine] when leaving Parking for [business name] customers only Permit holders only;. This is not the case for ALL signs.!
Signs should be readable and understandable at all times!. Not adhered to as per my attached evidence, where signs are completely obstructed, and writing/T&Cs are too small, and not as per text size guide in Appendix B.
The signage contains the BPA!!!8217;s Approved Operator Scheme logos which implies that the BPA:CoP is being complied with, but that cannot be assumed in this case.

Therefore, since the contents of the signage is impossible to read in its entirety in both physical and digital forms, which has been supported by the evidence, I once again request that my appeal is upheld and for POPLA to inform BP to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Best Regards,

Registered Keeper

Coupon-mad

[STRIKE]Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

The evidence pack that Britannia Parking (BP) supplied regarding POPLA Appeal, it clear it doesn't acknowledge any of the arguments put forth in the original appeals.
In response to the pack, the following:[/STRIKE]

Comments on evidence pack:

[STRIKE]1. No legible, unredacted landowner contract
2. Poor signage that does not comply with BPA:CoP

1. No legible, unredacted landowner contract[/STRIKE]

[STRIKE]BP failed to provide a[/STRIKE] No legible, unredacted [STRIKE]and enforceable[/STRIKE] contract which states [STRIKE]the T&Cs in which they operate in. Unclear from the provided,[/STRIKE] where the supposed contract is enforced [STRIKE]and what area are included[/STRIKE], or the start & end date of contract.

- No specific site is given, instead a [STRIKE]stretch of[/STRIKE] road.
- No [STRIKE]valid and[/STRIKE] legible signatories, handwritten dates & [STRIKE]and[/STRIKE] no landowner name [STRIKE]customer or signees.[/STRIKE]
No [STRIKE]essential information as to the[/STRIKE] info re contraventions, [STRIKE]the[/STRIKE] charge, [STRIKE]the[/STRIKE] days/times of enforcement, [STRIKE]any[/STRIKE] exemptions.

[STRIKE]Paragraph 7 of BPA CoP - mandatory requirements:

;7.2 operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner
7.3 The written authorisation must also set out: the definition of the land on which you operate, so boundaries are clearly defined
7.2 - unclear and illegible who has given the authority, if any at all.
7.3 - the plan/boundaries/land is illegible, no clear boundaries or markings as to where the enforced area is.[/STRIKE]



- Poor signage - [STRIKE]that[/STRIKE] does not comply with BPA:CoP

[STRIKE]Illegibility of signage is in direct breach of the British Parking Association: Code of Practice (BPA:CoP) this particular sentence of Section 18, Paragraph 3 (S18P3):

Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.[/STRIKE]

Impossible to read terms or 'charge' [STRIKE]all of the signage as the[/STRIKE] text [STRIKE]was[/STRIKE] too small, [STRIKE]the[/STRIKE] signs [STRIKE]were too far away [/STRIKE] scarce & [STRIKE]and clearly[/STRIKE] obscured ([STRIKE]as[/STRIKE] evidenced by appeal photos).
[STRIKE]Page 8 of BP evidence pack supports this, proves signs are too far away, unremarkable, and easily obscured.
Supports argument because impossible to read the fine print text in the stock signage images[/STRIKE]
Zoom into the images of the signs to read the fine print, it gets too blurry to read. [STRIKE]which makes the complete understanding of the sign impossible to ascertain, therefore breaching S18P3.[/STRIKE]

[STRIKE]Following as quoted from[/STRIKE] Appendix B (Entrance Signs) [STRIKE]in the[/STRIKE] of BPA CoP breached. [STRIKE]are not adhered too, clearly seen from evidence:[/STRIKE]

[STRIKE]There must be at least one item from Group 1. But;. Group 1 Pay and display [except/free for blue badge holders] [x minuteshour!s/hours!!!] free parking [for [business name] customers only] Pay on exit Pay [on foot/at machine] when leaving Parking for [business name] customers only Permit holders only;. This is not the case for ALL signs.!
Signs should be readable and understandable at all times!. Not adhered to as per my attached evidence, where signs are completely obstructed, and writing/T&Cs are too small, and not as per text size guide in Appendix B.
The signage contains the BPA!!!8217;s Approved Operator Scheme logos which implies that the BPA:CoP is being complied with, but that cannot be assumed in this case.[/STRIKE]

[STRIKE]Therefore, since the contents of the signage is impossible to read in its entirety in both physical and digital forms, which has been supported by the evidence, I once again request that my appeal is upheld and for POPLA to inform BP to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Best Regards,

Registered Keeper[/STRIKE]

doubled1989

Thanks. That has basically condensed it into a skeleton text that will now fit. They should give more allowance for a response.... it seems logical to include some extra info.

The charge bit however i will remove because that is in huge letters. Is it worth measuring some letters to see if they are of allowed size? I think i dropped the ball by not including some of the stuff i wrote there in my original appeal

Umkomaas

Is it worth measuring some letters to see if they are of allowed size?

Why huge letters? Some form of 'text shouting'? No room for that in a professional exchange. Leave it out - standard text size only.