Advise on appeal wording for bad signing

Coupon-mad

Say the WS is dated 18 months ago and is no evidence at all in a case in 2018 because it cannot be assumed that a contract in January 2017 continues into perpetuity. There are no expiry dates given so nothing to confirm to POPLA that old WS has any relevance at all.

ppsigning

Thanks Coupon-mad but I managed to already send that to them before you messaged me


I stated to them it was not the landlord and it had no expiry date.


However, shortly after the email was sent to them they got back to me with the below, basically I WON!


It would seem that indeed the operator did not send in a WS, and then tried to upload it after their date had passed.. naughty!!

When entering a privately managed car park the driver has a responsibility to ensure they review the terms and conditions displayed on the signage throughout the site. When a driver accepts the terms and conditions of the parking contract they also accept liability to settle the value of a PCN issued for the breach of those terms. POPLA considers that the parking period begins and ends on entry and exit to a carpark. Any terms and conditions apply to the full period the vehicle remains on site. If the driver remains for longer than is reasonable to review the terms and conditions of the site, or takes any action other than to review the terms and comply with them, we consider that the driver has entered and accepted the parking contract. The appellant has identified themselves as the registered keeper of the vehicle. Having reviewed the Parking Charge Notice, I am satisfied that the operator has complied with the strict requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, and therefore liability for the payment of the PCN can be transferred to the appellant. The burden of proof initially lies with the operator, it must evidence the terms and conditions of the parking site, how the driver was made aware of the specific parking conditions, and how the terms of the parking contract were breached. Once it has satisfied the burden of proof, it then passes to the appellant to provide any evidence or explanation that shows inaccuracy in the operator!!!8217;s evidence. POPLA!!!8217;s role is to assess whether an operator has issued a PCN in compliance with the terms and conditions of its signage as well as any relevant policies and procedures. I must base my decision on the evidence provided, and it is not within my role to request any further information from either party. In this case, the operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for remaining on site for longer that the period permitted. In response to the PCN, the appellant has not disputed that the vehicle has breached the terms and conditions of parking. They have however, challenged the accuracy of the evidence held by the operator and several procedural issues which are as follows; non-compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA); no evidence of holding a valid land owner authority document; quality of the signage at the site; and correct compliance with the British Paring Association (BPA) Code of Practice in relation to Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) technology. Having reviewed the evidence and comments provided, I conclude that the operator has not sufficiently met its!!!8217; burden of proof. For clarity, the appeal was submitted on 14 May 2018, which allowed the operator to the close of business on 4 June 2018 to have all documents and evidence submitted. The majority of the evidence pack was received on this date and the evidence of land owner authority was not included. The operator has made a submission on 7 June 2018, 3 working days later, which included further evidence. However, I cannot accept this as part of my assessment as it was given after the 21 day submission period. The appellant has challenged if the operator holds legitimate authority from the landowner to impose parking conditions and pursue a PCN for the breach of term. Within the admissible evidence the operator has failed to provide any information that it holds a valid contract with the land owner, and therefore I must allow the appeal, with no further need to review any other evidence or comment provided.

Umkomaas

For clarity, the appeal was submitted on 14 May 2018, which allowed the operator to the close of business on 4 June 2018 to have all documents and evidence submitted. The majority of the evidence pack was received on this date and the evidence of land owner authority was not included. The operator has made a submission on 7 June 2018, 3 working days later, which included further evidence.

However, I cannot accept this as part of my assessment as it was given after the 21 day submission period.

I rather suspect that had you not rattled POPLA's cage about this, the outcome of your appeal might have been a whole lot different.

Well done on your tenacity. :T