POPLA appeal comments stage

nosferatu1001

You cannot bind a driver to a contract requiring them to prohibit any occupant of the vehicle from leaving the site
Thats a nonsense
They also fail to define the site booundary, so depending on how obvious it is (over amain road is unlikely to be the same site, for example) that is another point.

Coupon-mad

So point out the lack of evidence that the person in any photos was 'the driver' of that car and/or that the place they were walking was not within the site.

And another point about the signs being unreadable small print/blurry photo evidence.

You only have 2000 characters, not words, so it's short and sweet comments at this last stage.

If you lose at POPLA no-one here is daft enough to think that means to pay the PPC! You'd be ignoring the PPC until you get a court claim and a fair hearing to kill it off, no risk, no CCJ.

SWtable92

As I stated I was the driver in my initial appeal, the worst decision and that I admitted to going somewhere they considered off site I didn't think I could include the first point you mention.


This however is my draft comments, any feedback on how it is written would be appreciated.




Regarding the contract, this has not been signed by the landowner, but rather a managing agent of the site. No further evidence has been submitted to confirm that this managing agent have the authority to act on the behalf of the landowner, especially with regards to entering into long-term contracts with 3rd party companies. It is also down to UKPC to prove that this contract is still in place as of the time of the PCN, all it confirms is that the contract was in place in June 2012.
The digital copy of the sign displayed by the bridge does not state the amount of the charge nor the parking restrictions clearly when you take into account the placement of the sign. The actual photos provided shows the bridge with the two signs, one of which is at eye level, the other being significantly higher, this is demonstrated by how far above it is in comparison to the gentleman standing in front of it. The sign that is at eye level has since been removed, for whatever reason, as can be seen in the photo of the vehicle with the bridge in the background, this is therefore not an accurate representation of the current signage within the car park. The other images within this file show just how small the text is for the majority of the information on the sign, when viewing the sign in person it is only clearly legible down to “terms of parking apply at all times”. Anything below this, which includes the charge amount and restriction is much smaller and illegible.


The case information from UKPC, states that the driver left the site. UKPC have not provided proof of any signage or information that defines the boundary of the site. The officer issuing the ticket, to have known the driver left the site, must have seen them do so. UKPC has not provided any information to say that any action was taken to mitigate any loss by informing the driver they are leaving the premises.

Coupon-mad

Good, but I wouldn't bother with any duty to mitigate loss as POPLA don't get it.

Unless their evidence disproves this idea, I would change the end to:

The case information from UKPC, states that the driver left the site. UKPC have not provided proof of any signage or information that defines the boundary of the site. Whilst the appellant admits to using xxxxxx, this <facility/shop?> appears to be within the same location and UKPC have not provided any tangible evidence that this was actually 'off site'.

SWtable92

Thanks all for your input, I've submitted my comments. Fingers crossed

Fruitcake

As you already mentioned, you should refer back to the previous appeal you quoted where the scammers couldn't prove they had landowner authority at this site and so that appeal was upheld.

Since nothing has changed, and the scammers are still not providing a contemporary unredacted copy of the relevant contract, it can only be presumed that there wasn't one in 2015 and there still isn't one now. If there is a contract in place, the scammers already know that they need to show it exists from their previous lost appeal.

UKPC were caught doctoring time stamps on their photo' "evidence" on a previous occasion resulting in a temporary ban on access to DVLA keeper data.
Withholding a current contract a second time appears to me to be yet another deliberate attempt to deceive the motorist and PoPLA.

I seriously suggest you add my last comment, and make a complaint to the BPA and DVLA about their continued attempts to deceit.

SWtable92

So my POPLA appeal was declined and as such I am contacting my local MP, the retail park and the business I was using to see if i can gain any support from them in removing the PCN. They have asked me to provide the PCN information and any supplement documents, after moving things around at home i have mislaid the original paper file. Is there anyway I can obtain a digital copy of this? Can I also access the Parking companies evidence from the POPLA processionals after a decision is made as I stupidly did not save it.

KeithP wrote: »

Is this query related to your other thread?

If so, please copy the post above as a reply on your existing thread.

You can send a SAR to the PPC to find out all they know about you.
Similarly with PoPLA.

Please no further response on this duplicate thread. Thanks.

apologies for starting a new thread.

I will make the relevant SAR requests, is this the only way? I can't imagine it will be the quickest?

SWtable92

So I have tried emailing POPLA SAR request email. The one I have found bounces back.

YourRights@ombudsman-services.org

Has anyone got a different address?

KeithP

Try DPO@ombudsman-services.org