Help With POPLA Rebuttal - Gemini PCN

John121

Hey guys,
First time Ive come on here. Hope all you guys are well. I usually use Pepipoo and the guys on there are awesome!
Ive put together a POPLA rebut which I need to send off by tomorrow, just wanted you guys to proof read and check all the points are ok?

Normally SchoolRunMum is brilliant with this stuff as I have no doubt the others are too, but Ive been advised shes on here.

My full case is on Pepipoo Private Parking Forum and it is topic number: 124780. It shows the appeal process ive gone through, including what I submitted to POPLA and what the operator has submitted. If you guys prefer me to post all this on here please let me know?

Will really appreciate if you guys can let me know your thoughts on this rebut, including which order I should put these points in:

1) The operator has failed to rebut the lack of POFA compliance. Their notice does not comply with POFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9 as it fails to include 9(2)(a), (e), (f), (h) and (i). The operator therefore agrees that their notice fails to meet the requirements of POFA and the appeal must consequently be upheld.

2) Despite their comments to the contrary, the operator’s contract does not forbid their principal from making alternative contractual arrangements as regards parking on the site. As the driver was granted such an alternative right to park, which the operator does not dispute the fact of, no contract with the operator was ever into, and no charge can therefore ever be issued.

3) The pictures which the operator has provided of the signage seem to be contradicting each other as the first picture shows 3 signs circled, however the second picture which has been taken from the same location as the first picture only shows 2 signs circled red, and this seems to be the same pattern with the other pictures provided. The site map provided by the operator has clearly been taken from Google Maps and does not have a date nor is it signed and does not have a location identifier, this can be located anywhere.

4) The operator has provided an alleged agreement covering this site, supposedly from the landholder; even though the contract has been signed however it has not been dated. Without a date the contract has not been validly executed. Furthermore, in neither document is the contracting party identified, nor is the location specified. This has been redacted by the operator. As this information cannot be commercially sensitive, the only reason to redact the information is to hide that there is no agreement with the landowner, or there is no agreement for this site. As such, the operator is in breach of the BPA code of practice that requires proof of landowner authority for the relevant land. As compliance with the Code of Practice is mandatory, the appeal must be upheld.

I apologies in advance if this is not the correct protocol I am following. Any help will be greatly appreciated.

Redx

SRM is CM over here (see the NEWBIES thread), so she may reply here or over on pepipoo


for a start, you need to trim the rebuttal, as its over the 2000 character limit

John121

I've checked it by putting in POPLA website and its all fitting in there with 8 letters to spare lol.

John121

I'm calling it a night guys, no sign of SRM or CM.

If anyone can please double check this and let me know if it's ok to send off as it is or if anything needs adding or removing.

Thanks

Coupon-mad

I'm here...

Looks fine except this cumbersome sentence which missed out the word 'entered' and didn't need the word 'ever':

As the driver was granted such an alternative right to park, a fact which the operator does not dispute [STRIKE]the fact of[/STRIKE], no contract with the operator was [STRIKE]ever[/STRIKE] entered into, and no charge can therefore [STRIKE]ever[/STRIKE] be issued.

John121

Heyyyyy. I've been tossing and turning and refreshing this every few minutes lol.

Thanks so much for checking ��

Which order should I put these points in?

Redx

I would swap 3 and 4 around and try to remove any extra "waffle" and any spurious characters including full stops etc as well, plus alter it as CM said above too


or better still , move 4) to 2) and edit

Coupon-mad

Yes I agree. Get it submitted and stop worrying, it's only POPLA!

John121

Perfect. Thanks a million. I'll get it submitted tommorow with the relevant changes and let you guys know how it goes 🤞

John121

Final thing guys. Any chance you can help me with maybe removing the waffle and possibly wording the below a bit better, before I submit?


4) The operator has provided an alleged agreement covering this site, supposedly from the landholder; even though the contract has been signed however it has not been dated. Without a date the contract has not been validly executed. Furthermore, in neither document is the contracting party identified, nor is the location specified. This has been redacted by the operator. As this information cannot be commercially sensitive, the only reason to redact the information is to hide that there is no agreement with the landowner, or there is no agreement for this site. As such, the operator is in breach of the BPA code of practice that requires proof of landowner authority for the relevant land. As compliance with the Code of Practice is mandatory, the appeal must be upheld.

The_Deep

Imagine trying to claim breach of contract where the contract does not mention the name of one of the parties, priceless. Surely that point alone should get the PCN cancelled.

The whole industry is a scam, relying on threats of court, and the public's ignorance of the Law, A bill is currently before parliament which will regulate the scammers, many of whom are ex-clampers.

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 Second Reading in the Lords this month, and, with a fair wind, will l become Law later this 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.