Paid for parking, wrong registration number

Redx

if the PPC has done this then you are past the POPLA appeal stage and at the evidence rebuttal stage, which has a 2000 character limit


so are you saying that you have already submitted your popla appeal and the PPC has sent in their evidence pack to popla ?


if yes, then your popla appeal has already gone in , meaning you are commenting on their evidence pack at the rebuttal stage, which means the following detail in post #1 was incorrect

so I am the POPLA appeals service stage.

devongirl48

Yes, I stuck to the fact that we had bought a ticket, and that my husbands reg had been entered in error.

I've never had to deal with this stuff before, which is pretty obvious I think, so what can I do if anything?

I see on the POPLA site I can't send the document as there is no option to attach files at this stage, to get around the 2000 character limit, so am I stuffed?

I could reduce my previous document to the most relevant points. I'm thinking of the following:

"In response, I ask the POPLA assessor to consider the following in further support of my original appeal.
- Parking charges at the date and time were paid, as evidenced by the Receipt provided.
- The signs in the car park are not prominent, clear or legible. PP have stated that the "The full and correct vehicle registration was not paid for. The signage at the pay point used does not specify that this is required. On close inspection, in very small text, the signs display the requirement to Enter Your Full Registration Number; in the pay instructions.
- No Evidence of Period Parked - NtK does not meet PoFA 2012, there is no record to show that the vehicle was parked. Premier Park Ltd's NtK simply claims that the vehicle entered at xx:xx xx/xx/18 and departed at xx:xx xx/xx/18. At no stage does PP explicitly specify the period of parking to which the notice relates.
- Submission response from PP does not relate to this case. The PCN includes a section on the reverse entitled Contesting this Parking Charge, stating All letters are carefully considered.
PP have included two statements irrelevant to this case:
"With regards to the appellants remarks that the parking charge notice is punitive and unreasonable and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss,"
At no time has the Appellant made reference to the PCN being punitive and unreasonable and a not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
And in the redacted agreement between PP and Marina Developments Limited (MDL), they refer to, M&M Properties Ltd c/o London Clancy, who are not an organisation relevant in this case.
It appears that PP have used a generic or template response that has no bearing on the case facts. Therefore, I do not believe PP have made a "careful consideration" of this case in order to reach their decision to refuse the initial appeal.
I therefore request that POPLA uphold the appeal and cancel this PCN.

Redx

nope, a popla rebuttal looks something like this


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=74254622&postcount=42


it is short and to the point and shows any actual errors & failings on their part, using their own evidence against them

devongirl48

Noted, thanks.

Coupon-mad

If you lose at POPLA, obviously sit tight and ignore PP.

Just like all the other Premier Park POPLA lost threads (search those terms, there are quite a few, so please don't worry if you lose, so what really?!)