CEL Appeal unsuccessful..POPLA stage help!

bill1984y

KeithP wrote: »

Both you contents list and your substantive points beyond point 5 seem to drift into a muddled mess.
For example, your ANPR point and double dipping seem to mixed between points 6 and 7.

What is the sentence starting "Then expand that this is not mitigation..." doing there? Lifted straight from post #3 above, I suggest.

i can't seem to find that sentence. i had copied it and wanted to type it into my appeal but i must have missed it.

KeithP

bill1984y wrote: »

i can't seem to find that sentence. i had copied it and wanted to type it into my appeal but i must have missed it.

It's on the end of your 'contents list' - appearing to be part of the title for point 7.

Umkomaas

1) failure to comply with Equality act 2010

POPLA will ignore this. They are not determining whether there was space for you at the car park, but whether the PCN was issued correctly. By all means leave it in - but at the end, just to attempt to push CEL to address it. It's not a showstopper, I'm afraid, and not needed as a distraction to the assessor at the start of the appeal, risking getting it off on the wrong footing.

In 6 years of coming here I've never once seen POPLA involve itself. They studiously avoid potential hot potatoes.

Leave the rant out about other PPCs and the Parliamentary Bill - it doesn't help you.

The NTK sent to myself as Registered Keeper arrived some 3 weeks after the alleged event.

You need to be much more specific than 'some 3 weeks'. If you're arguing legal points you have to be much more precise like the specific date of receipt alongside a primary school explanation to POPLA of all the critical dates involved/required and how precisely the PPC failed to meet the requirements.

The car in question was parked from 10:51:52 until 11:07:10.

Why do I not see at least an attempt to argue formal grace periods (2 of them) requirements?

bill1984y

Thank You

I will be re-writing the appeal to take out the unnessecary garbage. the original NTK stated that the vehicle was given this PCN because the car was entered an area for authorised vehicles only. Are there any points i can add into this appeal which fights this?
Its actually a car park for gym users and when parked the individuals are meant to enter their registration numbers into the system inside, however, the driver only was only there to pick up a family member.
Thanks in advance

Umkomaas

the original NTK stated that the vehicle was given this PCN because the car was entered an area for authorised vehicles only.

Is that what the actual signage said? Do you have your own photos taken in the same light conditions as those that prevailed at the time. If it was dark, take photos without flash, but you will need some with flash to determine what the signage says - it's the purported legal contract between the PPC and the driver.

If the signage says 'authorised vehicles only' (or similar), it is a 'forbidding sign' (do some searches on the forum) and no possible parking contract could have been on offer. So you'll need to build that into your POPLA appeal.

I guess even if the signage says otherwise, CEL have played their hand by making the statement in their NtK. So do plenty of research on the point.

bill1984y

Umkomaas wrote: »

Is that what the actual signage said? Do you have your own photos taken in the same light conditions as those that prevailed at the time. If it was dark, take photos without flash, but you will need some with flash to determine what the signage says - it's the purported legal contract between the PPC and the driver.

If the signage says 'authorised vehicles only' (or similar), it is a 'forbidding sign' (do some searches on the forum) and no possible parking contract could have been on offer. So you'll need to build that into your POPLA appeal.

I guess even if the signage says otherwise, CEL have played their hand by making the statement in their NtK. So do plenty of research on the point.

This is the sign post up close by the entrance wall. after entering the car park there are a couple signs on lampposts but i do not have photos of them.

i can't seem to post an image. I guess ill have to describe it. it states that
'PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY. MEMBERS/VISITORS MUST REGISTER FOR A PERMIT INSIDE SMALL HEATH WELLBEING CENTRE OR THE LIBRARY.'

The_Deep

POPLA will ignore this. They are not determining whether there was space for you at the car park, but whether the PCN was issued correctly.

In 6 years of coming here I've never once seen POPLA involve itself. They studiously avoid potential hot potatoes.

I Disagree. The law requires that a service provider must make reasonable adjustments to cater for the protected characteristics of the disabled. How do PPCs comply with this, by cancelling PCNs.

If the PPC refuses to cancel what is probably an unreasonably issued PCN ibn the first place, should not this be pointed out to PoPLA. If the PPC cannot that they have done this then the ticket was not properly issued imo.

Umkomaas

The_Deep wrote: »

I Disagree. The law requires that a service provider must make reasonable adjustments to cater for the protected characteristics of the disabled.

If the PPC refuses to cancel what is probably an unreasonably issued PCN ibn the first place, should not this be pointed out to PoPLA.

It's why I said this in my post:

By all means leave it in - but at the end, just to attempt to push CEL to address it.

But the reality is POPLA have never addressed it. Like they won't address other areas of law or areas of contention not linked to the parking contract, like ANPR pole mounted planning permission, like no advertising consent for signage, like railway byelaws, like DPA breaches, like ANPR camera maintenance records, like ghost ticketing, like believing that Beavis isn't an all-embracing panacea for PPCs .....

There is little purpose in raising false hopes in posters who are new to this complicated area of contract law and all its machinations, by encouraging them to clutch at straws (even though covered by law) floating by. There are more potent remedies if posters wish to pursue EA 2010 failures.

bill1984y

bill1984y wrote: »

This is the sign post up close by the entrance wall. after entering the car park there are a couple signs on lampposts but i do not have photos of them.

i can't seem to post an image. I guess ill have to describe it. it states that
'PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY. MEMBERS/VISITORS MUST REGISTER FOR A PERMIT INSIDE SMALL HEATH WELLBEING CENTRE OR THE LIBRARY.'

Will i be able to argue that there the driver was unable to physically enter the building to register themselves for a permit due to the lack of accessibility available for a blue badge holder? CEL have failed to make the reasonable adjustments to cater for the protected characteristics of the disabled individual

Umkomaas

bill1984y wrote: »

Will i be able to argue that there the driver was unable to physically enter the building to register themselves for a permit due to the lack of accessibility available for a blue badge holder? CEL have failed to make the reasonable adjustments to cater for the protected characteristics of the disabled individual

Yes, why not. POPLA do have the facility, where they feel there are extenuating, mitigating circumstances, to refer back to the PPC and ask them to reconsider their decision based on the circumstances.

POPLA do not themselves base any assessment on mitigation.

Do you have some corroborating evidence on that point to enclose with your appeal?

But be aware, it is entirely the decision of the PPC - and many don't even respond to POPLA following a request.

CEL have failed to make the reasonable adjustments to cater for the protected characteristics of the disabled individual

Arguably - physical access - might be more the responsibility of the landowner, not the parking company. It's likely why POPLA don't get involved in legal areas outside their primary remit.