Reasonably unfair?

Nicksy1

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Re #9, don't even bother to even look at the ParkingCowboys website, it's unhelpful IMHO. No links are given to that website here, for good reasons. The Consumer Contract Regulations 2013 mean nothing to POPLA.

Hi I realise what you are saying here as POPLA usually reject this point where a payment has been made for parking, however, the BPA CoP Jan2018 states "Important: you may have to give other information on signs and notices under companies and consumer protection law and other legislation." so it might be worth including anyway?

Coupon-mad

No, we've tried it before and it doesn't have legs.

The ParkingCowboys website has too much old info, and some diabolical links that this forums strongly advises, no-one should follow.

Nicksy1

In the template for inadequate signage the onus is put onto the parking company to prove the legibility of the signs from a drivers Point of view, however I have taken such photos myself, so should I rewrite this paragraph and add them as evidence AGAINST the legibility of these signs.

Coupon-mad

Yes, by all means write your own, like this person did (albeit we don't suggest you only go with signage as a single appeal point but this shows what that point can look like when personally illustrated with good, damning photos):

https://www.dropbox.com/s/9wccq5zonz4whcp/redacted.pdf?dl=0

And remove the template link to the eBay 'signs table' as I've been told it's now a dead link.

Nicksy1

Hi everyone, I've apparently missed an email from POPLA on 30th May telling me I have 7 days to respond to operator's comments. Will I've missed this... !!!128547;

I logged in and i can't see everything the operator wrote, some if which is plain BS:

They say signage clearly says permits must be displayed and that my car didn't display one. In my appeal I sent clear photo of sign not saying anything about permits being required to park.

They admit that business is closed but say hospital want to retain the spaces for this building (by the way signage has now been changed to staff parking only, but still nothing about permits). They also that pcn on private land to deter beach is contact is commercially justified by Beavis. But surely this can't be commercially justified as per Beavis as there is nothing to protect eg spaces for legitimate business users, or am I wrong there? They state they also included the contract.

Anyway what do I do now? Last time I logged into Popla there was nothing from operator, and I few days ago I checked email as had been a month since I submitted, but seems I missed the email in amongst all the junk from Popla on 30th.

Popla also state that if I cannot see everything contact them ASAP, so do I just email them now (ie ASAP after seeing it).

HELP !!!128549;

Coupon-mad

Just put some comments in about what their evidence has missed. e.g. if you had the standard template for 'no landowner authority' have they supplied the landowner contract, is it in date, or what.

Don't tell us, tell POPLA, and by email if the Portal is closed.

In the time it took you to reply to us here and lose yet another day, you could have done that tonight on the POPLA portal or by email if the Portal window is closed.

Nicksy1

My email apparently got attached to the file, and it seems just in time...
My appeal has been ruled successful, but from what I can see not based upon any of my appeal points or evidence submitted by me. Seems they overruled the operator based on a technicality that the operator didn't provide a specific piece of evidence to POPLA!

Nicksy1

Thank you Coupon-mad for all your help with this appeal. (oh and yes I had found that the ebay sign table was dead).

Umkomaas

Well done on your win. Can you copy the POPLA transcript into the POPLA Decisions sticky with a link back to this thread. Might help others who will tread a similar path in the weeks and months to come.

Nicksy1

I would love to post it, but since I didn't win on my arguments rather on their oversight in providing all evidence (which would have gone in their favour had they produced it) it wouldn't be helpful to anyone except the operators who would learn not to make the same mistake as they did here, and I dont want to help them win.

The underlying message is that POPLA will definitely throw out anything that is not up to POFA standards.

I'm actually saddened that all my effort seemed wasted and not used !!!128559;. They found there was missing evidence from operator then didn't even consider mine.