POPLA Appeal help - permit only car park

LloydEddy

Hi all,
After some help or thoughts please. I was recently visiting my sister, I am unfamiliar with her town centre, we went to McDonalds but there was a lorry broken down blocking the car park, my wife dropped me off and went to find somewhere to park and breastfeed the baby. A week later she received a PCN from CEL and pictures of the car entering and leaving the car park. The PCN says the above vehicle was parked at XXXX we therefore require payment of the PCN, in accordance with the parking terms and conditions clearly stated on the signage.

My wife didn’t see the sign at the entrance of the car park and parked in the bay straight ahead of her, she never left the car or noticed any other signs. The sign at the entrance says:

Permit Holders Only, see car park signs for terms and conditions, site managed using ANPR and manual patrols by CEL.

The car park is for a small retail park including franks factory flooring, a gym and a vets practise, you don’t have to have a permit as such but have to enter your registration number into an Ipad at above businesses.

She was parked there for 13 minutes and has been fined £100 or £60 payable 14 days. I appealed using the standard template and received a rejection letter and POPLA code.
I have read the newbies thread and lots of POPLA appeals but can’t see anything for Permit only retail car parks, there is no option to pay and display you have to enter your reg in the Ipad or you get fined. Unfortunately I don’t have a copy of the terms and conditions as the car park is an hour’s drive away, I have asked my sister to take a picture and send.

I am after advice on the grounds I am using for my appeal:
1) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.

2) The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.

3) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.

I have called the local council to ask who owns the car park but they directed me to Land Registry, they sent me a hefty application form to complete and I need to send a cheque (don’t have a cheque book) or a £4 postal order!
Anyone have any other suggestions on what to include? Thanks in advance!

Coupon-mad

Add the usual one about Grace Periods that you can search for and find, and she will have to add in the reasons why 'the unidentified driver' drove in and why no signs could be seen and why it took 13 minutes to leave (NOT that she was feeding a baby).

Why do people always go to car parks? I would stop on street where the risk is far less.

Stop seeking out a random car park all the time! I have no idea why people do this at all.

The_Deep

It is not a fine, it is a claim for compensation for damages for an alleged breach of an alleged contract. It is a scam, and, if they took you to Court, I doubt that a judge would agree that your actions cost them £100. Complain to your MP.

It is the will of Parliament that these scammers be put out of business. Hopefully that will take place in the near future. In the meantime involve your MP, the poor dears are buckling under the weight of complaints about these scammers. Read this one which I wrote earlier

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers.

Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Third Reading in late November, and, with a fair wind, will become Law next year.

All three readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 6-7 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.