POPLA appeal - Smart Parking draft advice please

KeithP

BellaJones123 wrote: »

To make any other readers aware, the POPLA appeal process requires you to split out each separate "argument" into separate sections of the appeal submission (therefore also requiring you to split out any documentary/photographic evidence for each separate argument). So you can't simply copy a draft of your appeal in its entirety and paste it into your submission. I ended up with about 8 or 9 different commentaries/pieces of evidence.

No it doesn't .

PoPLA allows one to submit a single document pdf appeal.

This process, of attaching a pdf appeal is described in post #3 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

Coupon-mad

To make any other readers aware, the POPLA appeal process requires you to split out each separate "argument" into separate sections of the appeal submission

No it doesn't, and please don't inadvertently mislead people. Oh dear oh dear.

You didn't read the NEWBIES thread, where this is explained, how do you think we get people to submit 12 page POPLA appeals every day of the week? By uploading the appeal under OTHER, as a full appeal (one document) PDF, like the NEWBIES thread tells you.

One tick box ('OTHER'), one upload, POPLA appeal done in ten minutes flat. Please let's not have 'but POPLA's website says ''other'' is more likely to lose...' We have seen it, done it and won.

If you lose this appeal will you listen to our advice FIRST, and not rush to pay it then come back and tell us what you've done, too late? We do this every day. Ask first. No paying this thing!

BellaJones123

Appeal successful. Smart Parking not contesting :j:j
Despite having my knuckles rapped I have summoned up enough courage to return to post the final version of my POPLA appeal. Apologies for inadvertently misleading any readers about the appeal process. I had read through the advice on NEWBIES, otherwise I would never have had the confidence to appeal, let alone a chance of winning it. There is a lot of invaluable advice to digest and I would encourage people to revisit the relevant sections every step of the way. No matter how bogged down you get, it is worth it.What doesn't seem relevant at the time might well become relevant later on, especially when it comes to actually submitting your appeal online.
As promised, Coupon-mad, please let me know if you have a favourite charity you would like me to make the donation to.
THANKS EVERYONE :T:T
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]FINAL APPEAL WITH PHOTO EVIDENCE REMOVED
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Dear Sir/Madam,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]POPLA Ref No.xxxxxxxx
I am the registered keeper of xxxxxxxxx and I wish to appeal a recent parking charge from Smart Parking and would be grateful if you would please consider my appeal for the following reasons:

1. Authorised user[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2. The minimum grace period was not allowed by the operator[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3. Insufficient signage[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4. No evidence of Landowner Authority

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1. Authorised user[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
I had paid the amount due for 3 hours parking and left well within that time limit. I then returned briefly to look for a lost earring that most likely fell out when getting back into my vehicle. The time of original entry was hh:mm and £3.00 was paid. This minimum charge of £3.00 covers 3 hours of parking at the site (see photo).The RingGo statement below is evidence of the £3.00 having been paid (+£0.20 admin fee). The fee paid therefore covered the vehicle up to hh:mm. It is unclear why the RingGo statement has an end time of only 2 hours. The re-entry time of the brief return to the car park (hh:mm) was therefore within this 3 hour period. The exit time was 1 minute outside (hh:mm), so well within the grace period.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The operator has been known to make much of Beavis case. They are well aware that the circumstances of the Beavis case were entirely different, essentially that case was the abuse of a free time limited public car park where signage could be used to create a contract.
In this case, I am an authorised user using the car park appropriately, there has been no loss to the owner. While the courts might hold that a large charge might be appropriate in the case of a public car park, essentially as a deterrent, there is nothing in the case to suggest that a reasonable person would accept that a £100 (or £60 if paid promptly) fine is a conscionable amount to be charged to a genuine customer. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The parking notice is only in respect of the 12 minute re-entry at hh:mm and re-exit at hh.mm. It is therefore apparent that the operator accepted the original period of valid parking at hh:mm despite the RingGo App defaulting to a previous VRN, rather than the current vehicle, as evidenced on the account history below.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
2. Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice –non-compliance[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Notwithstanding the evidence provided in point 1) above, the charge is in respect of a vehicle re-entering the car park at hh:mm and leaving at hh:mm[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The BPA’s Code of Practice states (13) that there are two grace periods: one at the end (of a minimum of 10 minutes) and one at the start.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]BPA’s Code of Practice (13.1) states that:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]BPA’s Code of Practice (13.2) states that:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]BPA’s Code of Practice (13.4) states that:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action.If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]BPA’s Code of Practice (18.5) states that:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“If a driver is parking with your permission, they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the contract with you. If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by your parking contract.”

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The BPA Code of Practice (13.4) clearly states that the Grace Period to leave the car park should be a minimum of 10 minutes. It is therefore reasonable to suggest that the minimum of 10 minutes grace period stipulated in 13.4 is also a “reasonable grace period” to apply to 13.1 and 13.2 of the BPA’s Code of Practice. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
My vehicle was in and out of the car park within 12 minutes. This time was necessary in order to read and understand the necessary signage and decide to leave again without incurring additional costs to those already paid earlier in the day. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3. Insufficient signage[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
There are no signs from Smart Parking displayed at the entrance to the car park. The sign is positioned further inside the entrance and parallel with the direction of travel, so a driver would be unable to read the sign whilst driving into the car park. Unreadable signage breaches Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice which states that terms on entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead. A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms beforehand. There may be a sign inside the car park but unlike the findings regarding the Beavis case car park, I was certainly not 'bound to' have seen the terms nor could be considered to have 'agreed' to a parking contract like Mr Beavis did. An unfair 'out of all proportion' charge for non-parking activity i.e. returning to the car park after an authorised visit in order to look for a lost earring, is precisely the sort of charge that the Beavis case Judges made clear would fail the penalty rule which was 'plainly engaged'.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Entrance to car park evidencing no visible signage..[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
4. No evidence of Landowner Authority
The landowner may wish consider that, as a previous genuine customer, I will not consider using the car park again if the charge is not cancelled, thereby affording them a financial future loss.
The operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' (see point 1 above) exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner in fact has a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).
Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.
Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).
Paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.
7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:
a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]For the reasons stated above, please would you consider my appeal against this parking charge.[/FONT]