PCN from PE. Going for POPLA Appeal this week

KeithP

By breaking the link in some obvious way before posting.

Often replacing http with hxxp is enough to do it.

If not, a bit of imagination may be required.

Martinmeet

Hi All,

I have given it another thought and changed the para in the Grace Period section as below (thought, saying 16 minutes look longer but if I say exactly how many minutes before buying the ticket and after set to leave, it will look better for assessor to review and consider):

[FONT=&quot]And, taking both BPA 'Observation' and 'Grace' Periods into account, considering the type and location of this busy car park, the condition of day being very cold, out-of-order machine and operational machine not accepting new pound coins, 8 minutes are perfectly within scope of the MINIMUM grace period of entering into the car park, observing signs, finding the working machine, queuing to pay and then having to ask for old coins. Similarly, when leaving from the car park, allowing car to defog for safe driving, getting the way clear to let other cars leave from car park and then waiting for the busy road to clear so I can leave the car park safely, 8 minutes are again perfectly within scope of the MINIMUM grace periods to leave any car park in such scenarios. Thus I contend that the PCN was not properly given.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]

Or to make it short and concise:

[FONT=&quot]And, taking both BPA 'Observation' and 'Grace' Periods into account, considering the type and location of this busy car park, the condition of day being very cold, out-of-order machine and operational machine not accepting new pound coins, allowing car to clear the fog to safely drive out of the car park, waiting for other cars to clear and then the busy road to clear so I can drive out safely, 8 minutes before buying the ticket and 8 minutes after the ticket expired, are perfectly within scope of both the MINIMUM grace periods taken together and so I contend that the PCN was not properly given.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]

Which one do you think will be better to use?

Any comments on the appeal will be much appreciated. Apologies for asking only after one day but I would like to improve it before I submit.

Links to the image: [FONT=&quot]ibb.co/gQgBJH

[/FONT]Many Thanks

Martinmeet

Thanks KeithP, it worked

Martinmeet

Following KeithP advise, here is the link to the draft

dropbox.com/s/w03gjzwafbqkulr/POPLA%20Draft%20for%20review_1.pdf?dl=0

I will really appreciate any inputs please.

Many Thanks

Coupon-mad

And, taking both BPA 'Observation' and 'Grace' Periods into account, considering the type and location of this busy car park, the condition of day being very cold, out-of-order machine and operational machine not accepting new pound coins, 8 minutes are perfectly within scope of the MINIMUM grace period of entering into the car park, observing signs, finding the working machine, queuing to pay and then having to ask for old coins. Similarly, when leaving from the car park, allowing car to defog for safe driving, getting the way clear to let other cars leave from car park and then waiting for the busy road to clear so I can leave the car park safely, 8 minutes are again perfectly within scope of the MINIMUM grace periods to leave any car park in such scenarios. Thus I contend that the PCN was not properly given.

When explaining grace period time taken, the longer & more detailed reasons for taking a few minutes either side of paid-for time, the better. So that one is better!

Aire Street has a narrow entrance that's also the exit, doesn't it, I think from other threads we've had in the past? And a bad surface that makes cars crawl along, and all the cars get in each other's way as some enter and others wait to exit?

And the machine that did work, has a scratched, old screen that the crisp clear daylight reflected on, making the terms and tariff being displayed on the actual machine hard to read as each coin was added, slipped through the old machine and had to be re-tried, as the equipment at Aire Street is clearly ancient.

Lay it on thick! This is all for PE to rebut/disprove and their own pics of the machines show they are old.

That sign is awful, and at ANKLE height! Who is meant to read that vandalised piece of rubbish? Point out to POPLA that clearly the car park signs/machines and the tarmac surface at Aire St are not well maintained which slows a driver down even if they can read the terms. And the sign is at ankle height, not eye height, with damage obscuring wording.

I would remove this as I don't think it's similar, this one is about not accepting a contract, and not parking/staying/paying at all:

Recently (late November 2017) there was a not dissimilar POPLA Appeal (versus
ParkingEye, Tower Road, Newquay) which was successful on the grounds that the assessor believed 11 minutes was a 'reasonable grace period' and that 'by seeking alternate parking arrangements, the appellant has demonstrated that he did not accept the conditions of the parking contract.'

Needs the details [Link to the thread]

Martinmeet

removed as added below in quotes.....

Martinmeet

Thank you so much Coupon-mad.

I have taken your comments and:

1. Added the para you suggested into the grace period point, added the details around entrance
2. added the machine issue point which is correct as well and also the extra wordings around the signage

Do you think I should leave the red text (under the signage image) there (if relevant) or remove that para?

I have now uploaded the updated version here for your review:

dropbox.com/s/uw4f3kbqq7obfvi/POPLA%20Draft%20-%20update%201.pdf?dl=0

If there is anything else I need amending, adding or removing then please guide and suggest.

Kind Regards,

Martinmeet

Coupon-mad wrote: »

When explaining grace period time taken, the longer & more detailed reasons for taking a few minutes either side of paid-for time, the better. So that one is better!

Aire Street has a narrow entrance that's also the exit, doesn't it, I think from other threads we've had in the past? And a bad surface that makes cars crawl along, and all the cars get in each other's way as some enter and others wait to exit?

And the machine that did work, has a scratched, old screen that the crisp clear daylight reflected on, making the terms and tariff being displayed on the actual machine hard to read as each coin was added, slipped through the old machine and had to be re-tried, as the equipment at Aire Street is clearly ancient.

Lay it on thick! This is all for PE to rebut/disprove and their own pics of the machines show they are old.

That sign is awful, and at ANKLE height! Who is meant to read that vandalised piece of rubbish? Point out to POPLA that clearly the car park signs/machines and the tarmac surface at Aire St are not well maintained which slows a driver down even if they can read the terms. And the sign is at ankle height, not eye height, with damage obscuring wording.

I would remove this as I don't think it's similar, this one is about not accepting a contract, and not parking/staying/paying at all:

Martinmeet

Apologies for asking it again but could experts please have a look at my pdf on dropbox and provide suggestions, comments or any changes I should do please, prior to submit to POPLA.

I need to submit the appeal quickly now as 30 days are approaching since I got the reference number.


Many thanks

Martinmeet

KeithP

I'm a bit puzzled.

On page 7 you show a picture titled 'Signage at entrance of Aire Street, Leeds'.

You go on to say "these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print" but the picture you have provided immediately above that text show the '£100' as the largest writing on the sign.

Your next sentence talks specifically about the entrance sign saying again that the parking charge is not in large lettering.

You might confuse the assessor here.

The picture of the Supreme Court tweet could be embed to good effect.
As could the Bevis sign - but do resize it first.

Martinmeet

Thanks KeithP.

I know what you are indicating at.

That is the reason I put those in red text as few signs showing the charge - one at the entrance which cannot be seen from driving seat, and others are on the pols at a good hight whereas other signs don't mention these charges at all.

Secondly, the machines do not show these charges at all.

Thus I kept this para in there but happy to remove if this can confuse the assessors.

Re the pictures - I will add them for sure. thanks for your suggestion on this.

Is everything else in this appeal looks ok (if I remove the para you are talking about and add pictures)?

Any other thing needs amending or updating?

Many Thanks

KeithP wrote: »

I'm a bit puzzled.

On page 7 you show a picture titled 'Signage at entrance of Aire Street, Leeds'.

You go on to say "these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print" but the picture you have provided immediately above that text show the '£100' as the largest writing on the sign.

Your next sentence talks specifically about the entrance sign saying again that the parking charge is not in large lettering.

You might confuse the assessor here.

The picture of the Supreme Court tweet could be embed to good effect.
As could the Bevis sign - but do resize it first.