draft of appeal to popla

kp63

Hi guys
i am at the popla stage and this is a draft of my appeal for "leaving the site" allegations
i have read posts on this forum and find i am even more confused so a little help would be gratefully appreciated

Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

I am the registered keeper of vehicle XXXXXXX and am appealing a parking charge from Premier park on the following points:

1, No evidence of leaving site provided by Premier Park

2, The Premier Parking operative did not mitigate his company's loss by warning the driver they should not leave the site.

3, Not clear who or what the PCN is aimed at

4, The signs do not define 'the site' or show a map detailing the limits of 'the site

5, No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

1, Parking and Leaving Site
There is no evidence that the occupants of the car left the site and this is denied, and indeed the 'site' is not even identified in any map or terms on the signs, there is no boundary and the event is hearsay.

2, The Premier Parking operative did not mitigate his company's loss by warning the driver they should not leave the site.

The burden of proof shifts to Premier Park to explain why their attendant (presumably) watched a Driver walk towards the edge of an undefined boundary, yet made no attempt to stop/warn the Driver. The attendant also had a legal duty under contract law, to mitigate any loss. In VCS v Ibbotson, Case No 1SE09849 16.5.2012: District Judge McIlwaine stated 'you say he!left!the premises...where does the premises start and where does the premises finish?...there is a duty to mitigate the loss.' In this case now under POPLA appeal, I contend that Premier Park have neither demonstrated any evidence that there was a breach nor shown that their operative took any steps to mitigate any loss.

3, The PCN letter states “we have issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) #XXXXX to your vehicle because it was parked in a manner whereby the driver became liable for the parking charge.”
I am as the registered keeper unsure if this PCN is to the vehicle, the driver or the Keeper, I am exercising my right not to name the driver


4, The signs do not define 'the site' or show a map detailing the limits of 'the site' therefore a motorist could not know if or when they have left 'the site'.

Evidence should include a picture of the signage that would have communicated to the Driver the defined boundary of the site they are alleged to have left


5, No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

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. The contract and any site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' 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/firms on!site!in fact have 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 in small print 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 CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:
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

Redx

6) is missing, or they want renumbering


no bullet point menu before appeal point 1), in order to show the grounds of appeal and their numbering and short header details


ie:- give the assessor a menu , dont let them eat the whole meal before deciding they dont want or need the carrots

kp63

Thank you Redx for your comments
i have edited the draft.
Is Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP part of the Landowner Authority or have i mucked it up

Coupon-mad

1, Parking and Leaving Site

Premier Parkr has provided two photographs of my unattended vehicle correctly parked within the designated bay which is not a pay and display car park.
No clear Evidence has been provided which shows the Vehicle Driver leaving the site. Photographic evidence linking the photo of the person leaving the site with a photo of the actual Driver. The photos need to be of such quality as to clearly link the two images. The photo should show the Driver crossing the boundary.

How are they going to show POPLA who the person in any photo, is, and that they were the driver? They won't.

So just say there is no evidence that the occupants of the car left the site and this is denied, and indeed the 'site' is not even identified in any map or terms on the signs, there is no boundary and the event is hearsay.

kp63

Thank you Coupon-mad for your input
i have made the changes

kp63

well the appeal is in, and what a nightmare
i had everything written up and ready to go and it still took me over 2 hr to complete the popla appeal form

KeithP

Well it does say in the first few lines of post #3 of the NEWBIES:

don't feel you have to answer their questions

Redx

why ? all you normally do is upload the appeal in pdf format and put something like "see attached appeal" , after choosing "other"

Coupon-mad

You only had to click one box: 'OTHER' and fill in one page of basic data (name/address/PCN number etc.,) and upload one PDF.

kp63

official forms trigger a button, then the panic sets in. its always been that way

kp63

received a great email today from popla

"Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.
An Appeal has been opened with the reference xxxxxxxxxx
Premier Park have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge.

Yours sincerely

POPLA Team"

100% big thank you for the help from this site and its forum members