POPLA appeal advice

lucifersam

Hi,

I received a Parking Charge Notice for "exceeding the free stay allowance in a retail car park"

Arrived: 11:31.16
Left: 14:56.06

"Maximum 3 hours free parking" - Issued by: Civil Enforcement LTD, Horton House, Exchange Flags, Liverpool, L2 3PF

I appealed through the company's website with evidence of being in the shops (receipts with dates/times) and stating that I am a mother with a toddler that I am breastfeeding.
The appeal was rejected and I now have a verification code to appeal to POPLA.

I have read through some of the threads on this forum and the most relevant seem to be related to discrimination under the EQUALITY ACT 2010. The three hour limit discriminated against me as a breastfeeding mother completing the shopping tasks I needed to do and there was no other reasonable option to pay for longer time.

See thread p=63814146#post63814146

(I can't post links as a new user)

Does anyone have any advice about the best approach to a POPLA appeal with the highest chance of success under these circumstances?

Thanks!

nosferatu1001

Have you found and read the newbies thread?
It contains some excellent examples

If you need to post links, then you "break" the URL by changing "HTTP" to "HXXP"; we can then fix it. If you do anything else it just makes it a damn sight harder to fix

lucifersam

Hi,

Thanks for replying. I read the newbie thread regarding the POPLA appeals and found examples for signage, landowner authority, no keeper liability and permitted car parks.

I couldn't see anything relating to discrimination under the EQUALITY ACT 2010 and POPLA appeals, so I was wondering if that's a worthwhile approach to take or not?

Thanks!

Fruitcake

PoPLA doesn't consider mitigating circumstances which is probably why you won't find it as a template appeal point. However, breastfeeding mothers of infants (under 6 months I believe) are covered by the Equality Act 2010 as having protected characteristics.

I suggest you create an appeal point based on this stating that The Law as defined by Act of Parliament means the scammers are required to allow you extra time because of this now they are aware of your circumstances, and they risk being convicted under this act if they continue.

PoPLA may ignore it, but the scammers may pull out once they see it. You never know, but I firmly believe you should include it. Personally I would make it point 1 to see what PoPLA do about it.

If the scammers take it to court they could find themselves in a lot of trouble.

lucifersam

Thanks so much for the clarification. I will take that approach as suggested. Are the following approaches the only ones known to work with a POPLA appeal?

Signage, landowner authority, no keeper liability and permitted car parks.

(Taken from the newbie thread.)

Fruitcake

There are many things that work, but not all of them may be relevant. You need to include any and every point that is relevant. You only need one to win, but the scammers need to disprove all of them.

Depending on how long over the three hours, Grace Periods (note the plural) may be relevant.

Have you complained to the retail manager of all the shops on site, not just the ones where you spent money.

Coupon-mad

lucifersam wrote: »

Thanks so much for the clarification. I will take that approach as suggested. Are the following approaches the only ones known to work with a POPLA appeal?

Signage, landowner authority, no keeper liability and permitted car parks.

The above should be enough to see off CEL, who tend to fold rather than contest very long & detailed POPLA appeals.

I always embed damning images of the blurry/dark signs in the part on signage.

lucifersam

Thanks for your responses. I'm going to use the relevant points from Appeal_stage2_POPLA_ECP_draft5.pdf but make point one about Equality Act 2010. Thanks again for your help.