Help please - have i made a mistake?

Standupforyourself

ok thanks, will add

Do you think it is worth adding BPA non compliance points as well?

e.g. they took over 2 months to provide a POPLA code

they have also sent a final reminder notice asking for more money and threatening bailiffs, just three days after providing the POPLA code

Umkomaas

they have also sent a final reminder notice asking for more money and threatening bailiffs, just three days after providing the POPLA code

Have you complained to the BPA about this? If not, email Steve Clark.

steve.c@britishparking.co.uk

Standupforyourself

Umkomaas wrote: »

Have you complained to the BPA about this? If not, email Steve Clark.

steve.c@britishparking.co.uk

yes complaint was sent last week. Steve not around but one of his staff is looking at it. Not really sure if there is much point though? Are the BPA motivated to punish the members that pay its fees?

Umkomaas

Standupforyourself wrote: »

yes complaint was sent last week. Steve not around but one of his staff is looking at it. Not really sure if there is much point though? Are the BPA motivated to punish the members that pay its fees?

Not really, but having the BPA sniffing around can sometimes cause the PPC to cancel. Nothing is certain in this game, it's all a game of poker!

Coupon-mad

Do you think it is worth adding BPA non compliance points as well?

e.g. they took over 2 months to provide a POPLA code

No, not in a POPLA appeal.

Standupforyourself

ok thanks.

should be appealing on the use of ANPR cameras?

Also, how reliable are they? They simply record when your car entered the car park and when it left, not how long it was parked for. Even though the PPC claim that parking begins 5 minutes after you enter this is not something which is stated on their entry sign as you drive in.

Umkomaas

should be appealing on the use of ANPR cameras?

What would you want to be saying on ANPR cameras? Do you have some specific information about the ones involved in your parking event?

Every time ANPR cameras are used as an appeal point (like reliability), the PPC tells POPLA that theirs are reliable, and POPLA says, well they must be then - appeal point ignored.

Standupforyourself

Umkomaas wrote: »

What would you want to be saying on ANPR cameras? Do you have some specific information about the ones involved in your parking event?

Every time ANPR cameras are used as an appeal point (like reliability), the PPC tells POPLA that theirs are reliable, and POPLA says, well they must be then - appeal point ignored.

well yeah exactly that, that they are not reliable. I mean, how do we know the times are not doctored to make it look worse than it is.

I'm just looking for other strings to add to my bow - not that a bow should have any more than one string..... Mixed metaphor? I dunno, I'm going mad.

I've got not relevant land, no land owner authority, signage and no keeper liability. Just wondered if i was missing anything else fundamental which you good folk know more about than me.

Coupon-mad

ANPR unreliability is not worth trying at POPLA without evidence. You need to concentrate on 'not relevant land' and cite the POFA on that issue, and embed into your word document, scans, maps, images/any proof that this is Council owned.

I've got not relevant land, no land owner authority, signage and no keeper liability. Just wondered if i was missing anything else fundamental which you good folk know more about than me.

That should be enough if you are convincing with your 'not relevant land' argument.

Standupforyourself

Coupon-mad wrote: »

ANPR unreliability is not worth trying at POPLA without evidence. You need to concentrate on 'not relevant land' and cite the POFA on that issue, and embed into your word document, scans, maps, images/any proof that this is Council owned.

That should be enough if you are convincing with your 'not relevant land' argument.

am i right in saying the relevant land argument applies to parking charges related to the driver of the vehicle, not the registered keeper?

Paragraph 1 states:

(1)This Schedule applies where—
(a)the driver of a vehicle is required by virtue of a relevant obligation to pay parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on relevant land; and
(b)those charges have not been paid in full.

It is only when you get down to paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 that it talks about the registered keeper. Or does relevant land clause apply to both?

I'm trying to get my argument straight.

Are we saying:

1) if it isn't relevant land then the driver and/registered keeper cant be held liable?

2) even it was somehow relevant land then there is no clear landowner authority in the absence of any contractual evidence?

Sorry to harp on but i really want to be clear on this before i submit. Deadline is approaching!