Waiting PCN private area help needed on popla appeal

JeffBezos

Coupon-mad wrote: »

No, lack of timestamps on the PCN is not a winning POPLA point.

They might do, as they are not legally trained.

You do realise you only have 2000 characters, and just 6 days, to make a few bullet point comments? Not a list of hysterical questions like you posted above, too many for me to read I'm afraid. You need to get your ducks in a row and work out the valid bullet points to nudge POPLA in the right direction in a FEW words.

Spend some time reading other POPLA comments threads. Keywords right there.

thanks - you advise being short and concise using bullet points.

Do I point out that their arguments are not valid - or that they have refused to respond to my points and list them.

Also - they supplied an image of a sign that has totally different writing to the one on site. Is this not a slam-dunk? Misleading a popla appeal with false evidence?

KeithP

JeffBezos wrote: »

thanks - you advise being short and concise using bullet points.

Do I point out that their arguments are not valid - or that they have refused to respond to my points and list them.

Also - they supplied an image of a sign that has totally different writing to the one on site. Is this not a slam-dunk? Misleading a popla appeal with false evidence?

Please re-read post #35.

You are asking questions that have already been answered.

JeffBezos

KeithP wrote: »

Please re-read post #35.

You are asking questions that have already been answered.

2000 characters is nowhere near enough! How can anyone point out everything in a few hundred words?

Anyway - I've done what I can, but is it wise to post it here before I submit it or is that unwise?



What happens next by the way when they refuse it and ask me to cough up £100? :-(

nosferatu1001

Yes, of course it is wise to post i here.
You eiyther pay or tell them to go stuff themselves and will nly pay if a court orders you to do so.

JeffBezos

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

Yes, of course it is wise to post i here.
You eiyther pay or tell them to go stuff themselves and will nly pay if a court orders you to do so.

OK - Thanks, maybe I have nothing to lose really.

It will mean virtually nothing unless anyone bothers to relate it back to my uploaded PDF:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rog1ZPcXZqwfDUHas5DpqRAjmIR5v2X3/view

(POST#26)

Use of only 2000 characters is a killer (and I guess that's why it is set at that)

Anyway - for what it's worth, this is it...

---

Park Watch first bullet point referencing image (Ev1A) is FALSE evidence.
The operator is attempting to mislead POPLA. The wording on (Ev1A) is a dishonest fabrication. The sign (Ev1A) does NOT exist in the area. PW own evidence provides images of the actual signage on site (Ev5A) (Ev5B) These correspond with my appeal images (Fig.14) (Fig.12).
I believe such a blatant attempt to deceive POPLA should be grounds to uphold my appeal.

Appeal point 2. (BPA’s CoP Appendix points (a, b, c, d, e, f, g,) Have not been challenged. PW response (point 8) attempts to imply that there is an entrance sign in operation. (Ev5A) (Ev5B) Operators own evidence shows only the wall signage, located WELL within the area. My appeal images (Fig.12 Fig.5 and Fig.4) prove beyond doubt, NO compliant entrance signs are in operation. Thus, my appeal should be upheld.

Appeal Point 2. Specific note to Point c) (above) PW Bullet Point 14 own admission states NON- compliance with BPA’s CoP Appendix B (c) above) thus my appeal should be upheld.


Appeal Point 1. section: ‘Consider A reasonable grace period which must be applied for the time taken to:’ (subsequent bullet Points) have not been challenged, (and no arguments have been given to refute the grace period required) – thus all points have been accepted.

Appeal Point 1. Forbidding Signage: (Re-Operators response - Bullet Point 10) The operator has accepted that no contract was ever offered, meaning no charge can be issued as no contract was breached. POPLA cannot rule that a failure to offer a contract means a contract was offered. PW has accepted there was no offer, and therefore no contract. Thus, my appeal should be upheld.

Appeal Point 4. No Evidence of Landowner Authority Operators response is (Ev2) dated 27/02/13 New ownership of the shopping centre began in 2015, rendering (Ev2) an out of date document. This falls far short of the requirements detailed in section 4. Thus, my appeal should be upheld.


All points below have not been challenged by the operator and have thus been accepted.

Appeal Point 1. (CoP 13.1)
Appeal Point 1. (Kelvin Reynolds BPA guidance)
Appeal Points 1. (a.b.c.d.e.)
Appeal point 2. (CoP 18.2) initial points (a.b.c.d.)
Appeal Point 3. BPA’s CoP (18.10) points: (a.b.c.d.e.)
Appeal Point 3. BPA CoP (18.3) points: (a.b.c.d)
Appeal Point 3. (Old Signage still in use) Incl. Fig.29

---

I think corruption, self interest and collusion will always defeat the "little man", but if anyone has anything useful to add it will be greatly accepted. Thanks.

Coupon-mad

If that is too many characters (as it's not 2000 words allowed) remove all the ''Thus, my appeal should be upheld'' and change 'and' to & throughout, and reduce any waffle in sentences.

I suspect you are worrying about nothing.

What happens next by the way when they refuse it and ask me to cough up £100? :-(

LOL, it's only Parkwatch - no-one pays them!

Have you never searched the forum?

Rather than ask us ''what happens'' as if it's something new and not covered on other threads, 'POPLA lost' are the keywords to use to find out about all the people happily ignoring parking firms if they lost at POPLA!

Umkomaas

2,383 characters - won't work. Bit of trimming required, as per CM's suggestion.

JeffBezos

Coupon-mad wrote: »

If that is too many characters (as it's not 2000 words allowed) remove all the ''Thus, my appeal should be upheld'' and change 'and' to & throughout, and reduce any waffle in sentences.

I suspect you are worrying about nothing.


LOL, it's only Parkwatch - no-one pays them!

Have you never searched the forum?

Rather than ask us ''what happens'' as if it's something new and not covered on other threads, 'POPLA lost' are the keywords to use to find out about all the people happily ignoring parking firms if they lost at POPLA!

Ah! (and to &) - honestly never thought of that, and might need it so thanks.

What "waffle" ?? It took me hours to cut it down to this level of just under 2000 characters.
I am worried that nowhere near enough detail has been added to refute Park Watch response?

Wish I were as positive as you are, Many Thanks.

JeffBezos

Umkomaas wrote: »

2,383 characters - won't work. Bit of trimming required, as per CM's suggestion.

Oh NO! What to get rid of now? It's almost as if any meaningful reply is pointless.
I'm going to begin with the previous advice then...... ???

KeithP

One hundred and forty characters gained by deleting the four occurrences of 'Thus, my appeal should be upheld''.