One Parking Solution - Visitors Space PCN

Fruitcake

Embed ALL images in the body of your appeal. Do not use links or an appendix for images.

So where you say, here is the Beavis sign for comparison, the next thing the assessor needs to see is an image of the Beavis sign.

The same apples where you show images of the signs on site, and also excerpts from your lease.

You want the assessor to see everything as they read through, not ignore or miss links to somewhere else.

AOneVS

POPLA appeal submitted on February 4th. OPS have added their evidence pack yesterday (according to Popla email). It wasn't visible until today. It consists of many pictures of signs, the car without a permit, a contract and site map and the NTK that was sent to the old address. Oddly they included 3 zip files with the same examples of permits and how they should be placed in the vehicle.

They say:

A redacted contract is supplied to protect personal information.
The appellant entered into a contractual agreement upon parking on site. The terms are laid out on the signage on site including at the entrance and state that parking is permitted for vehicles displaying a valid permit and/or pre-authorised vehicles parked wholly within their allocated parking space. By parking or remaining on site otherwise than in accordance with the above the driver agrees to pay a parking charge. The driver made use of the facilities and went about their business.
At the time of the contravention the appellant was not displaying a valid permit, and nor did they have pre-authorisation to park their vehicle in the car park as they were not on the exemption list and therefore agreed to pay a parking charge.
In the Appeal to One Parking Solution the Appellant stated that the notice to driver did not state the contravention. The parking charge notice states: “reason for issue: Failure to Display a Valid Permit”.
The contravention did not concern a pay and display machine.
The contravention did not concern an overstay of minutes.
The signs on site state that vehicles parking in a visitor bay must display a visitor permit. Permit examples are included. The Appellant’s vehicle was not displaying a visitor permit in the front windscreen as can be seen in contravention photo 1.
It is the driver’s responsibility to ensure they are parked in accordance with the terms. If they are unable to do so they should either, make alternative parking arrangements or otherwise agree to pay a parking charge. If the driver is unsure, our number is on the boards and the signs are BPA approved.
As the driver has not been named, One Parking Solution are seeking keeper liability.

Which sounds pretty week to me.

The contract Site address and location where they provide a service. This is shown as the estate name and the various road names. The vehicle was parked on X Close, but the name in the contract is X Croft.

The contract is redacted and signed by someone on behalf of the management company.

Any thoughts on how I should respond?

AOneVS

Bumping as I have 5 days to respond to their evidence pack.

Le_Kirk

Advice on how to rebut the evidence pack can be found in the NEWBIE sticky post # 3. Scroll down to here: -

AFTER SUBMITTING YOUR POPLA APPEAL:

If the PPC contests the POPLA appeal, they will put on the Portal (and maybe also send to you) their POPLA evidence pack. It is NOT from POPLA not the decision!

This is your chance to comment on the crappy evidence from the scumbags.

YOU REALLY MUST COMMENT, BUT KEEP IT VERY CONCISE TO FIT COMMENTS IN THE PORTAL.

then keep reading and look at the links shown.

AOneVS

Thanks, I have read through those and will include some of the points raised in them.

The links in that section are over 3 years old, so I was just after some up-to-date advice if possible.

KeithP

The NEWBIES thread is bang up to date.

If there are links in there pointing to 'aging' posts, then that older information is still current.

Coupon-mad

AOneVS wrote: »

Thanks, I have read through those and will include some of the points raised in them.

The links in that section are over 3 years old, so I was just after some up-to-date advice if possible.

It is up to date...I edit the NEWBIES thread regularly. It's just the advice on commenting on POPLA evidence is not going to change; it remains:

This is your chance to comment on the crappy evidence from the scumbags.

YOU REALLY MUST COMMENT, BUT KEEP IT VERY CONCISE TO FIT COMMENTS IN THE PORTAL.

Draft what you've spotted and show us (2000 characters max, NOT '2000 words').

AOneVS

Popla were kind enough to give a couple of extra days as the evidence wasn't available when they said it was.

I have a couple of questions. They include an NTK, that was never received at the new address. I've been through it and it looks like it meets POFA. But:

They say: 'You are advised that if, after

29 days from the date given (which is presumed to be the second working day after the Date of Sending), the parking charge has not been paid in full and we do not know both the name and current address of the driver, we have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from you'
Shouldn't this be 28 days?

• Secondly, they say the 14 day discount period has passed and the full amount is due. Can they say that on the NTK?

Also is it worth raising these points about the contract?

• The contract states a site address and location where they provide a service. This is shown as the estate name and the various road names. The vehicle was parked on X Close, but the name on the contract is X Croft.

• The contract is redacted and signed by someone on behalf of the management company.

• It also mentions that a permit holder is responsible for displaying the permit. Can a visitor to an estate be a permit holder. The permit isn't sent to the visitors address.

• There is no end date of the contract, 12 months from 15th March 18 then on a month by month basis.

• They mention that "all signs conform to POFA 2012 & ATA requirements". :undecided

nosferatu1001

No, it is 28 days starting the day AFTER the notice is given, so 29 days FROM when the notice is given is the same period.

The discount bein goven HIGHLY suggests this is a reminder / 2nd notice to keeper, NOT the first. If there is no windscren ticket then they are compelled by the BPA CoP to offer the keeper the discount. So you can point this out as ANOTHER Failure of the COP (meaning NOT a new appeal point) OR that this sugegsts this is NOT teh "real" NTK, but a mocked up copy theyve used the wrong template for, and point out that their usual NTK would offer the discount.

If X Croft does not exist, then they do not have rights to anywhere, let alone X Close! OF COURSE YOU MENTION THIS!
Redacted so you cant see essential terms, or just of the commercial basis for the contract? The latter owuld be accpetable.
Management company - if theyre not hte landholder then the operator has not shown they have authority as required. AGain, raise this.
No end date is fine
Of course the contract claims that - do you tink they will say their signs DONT meet the requiremetns?

AOneVS

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Draft what you've spotted and show us (2000 characters max, NOT '2000 words').

2000 characters is about 350 words! This seems considerably less than the rebuttals I've been looking at. Did something change?