Popla appeal euro car parks

Redx

state that you believe their contract has been falsified

SamJ84

Redx wrote: »

state that you believe their contract has been falsified

Is that enough? Do I state why or post links as evidence?

Redx

you cannot submit evidence at this stage, I already said so earlier , but you can imply that the contract has been falsified, it is the job of ECP to prove their claim and their evidence is valid, it is YOUR JOB to rebut what you can

plus you still have to strip that amended rebuttal I posted earlier as well, perhaps by getting rid of planning issues in favour of contract falsification, especially if they havent notorised the contract in your evidence pack to allow the change, OR redone the contract and signed it on a newer date instead


I notice that the OP in that thread NEVER UPDATED US ON THE OUTCOME , typical hit and run tactics, meaning we never got to see the result. In the meantime , READ the replies you are getting , carefully , we dont type stuff for nothing

SamJ84

More or less done. Just need to remove some of the red text to get it under 2000 characters. Any advice on which red text to remove and keep? Are references to the figures in ECP evidence necessary?

Frustration of contract - ECP has provided no proof the provided payment methods were working and fault free nor shown clear instructions informing the driver how to pay by phone, only numbers to ring or download apps. ECP has also failed to show prominently displayed signs on site such that the party ‘must' have known and agreed terms it was the driver's responsibility to check for other payment methods or find alternative parking to avoid a PCN being issued in the event of a machine fault

POPLA is reminded that you are an evidence-based appeals service ONLY, which requires omissions in evidence to be noticed

Signs - The evidence provided by ECP prove my appeal points concerning the signs rather than the points claimed by ECP

Additionally, much of the photographic evidence provided was a distance away in other sections of the car park and not visible from where the car was parked. At least one sign has a different site number, some were old with outdated tariffs, and some after the day of the incident

ANPR - ECP has failed to show any signs transparently warning drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for, which is a failure to identify its commercial intent

Landowner Authority [fig 4] - There is no indication who the signatories are or whether they have the authority to sign on this company’s behalf. I also believe this contract has been falsified. Specifically point 5 of the authorisation instructions being altered after the contract was signed, recently being changed to include dates the agreement runs from and to

Period Parked - Photos claiming to show a car entering and leaving is insufficient evidence of a car being parked on the date/time for the duration claimed [fig 1]

Entry & Exit photos could be any location, and as such ECP has failed to indisputably relate the photo to the location stated. The leaving photo is pitch-black. It identifies no car nor VRM. This cannot serve as proof of any car leaving the car park, nor any length of parking

Planning Permission - ECP has failed to provide evidence that the correct planning applications were submitted and approved prior to the date of the incident

SamJ84

Final draft which will be submitted later subject to advice

Frustration of contract: ECP has provided no proof the provided payment methods were working and fault free. Nor have they shown signs instructing the driver how to pay by phone, only a number and app to use. ECP has also failed to show prominent signs on site such that the party must have known and agreed terms it was the driver's responsibility to check for other payment methods or find alternative parking to avoid a PCN being issued in the event of a machine fault

POPLA is reminded that you are an evidence-based appeals service ONLY, which requires omissions in evidence to be noticed

Signs: The evidence provided by ECP prove my points concerning the signs and not the points made by ECP, particularly regarding entrance signs and the £100 parking charge

Additionally, much of the sign evidence provided are from sections of the car park not visible from where the car was parked. At least one sign has a different site number, one has outdated tariffs, and some taken after the day of the incident

ANPR: ECP has failed to show any signs transparently warning drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for, which is a failure to identify its commercial intent

Landowner Authority: There is no indication who the signatories are or whether they have the authority to sign on the company’s behalf. I also believe this contract was altered after it was signed, with dates recently added to authorisation instruction 5

Period Parked: Photos claiming to show a car entering and leaving is insufficient evidence of a car being parked for the duration claimed

Entry & Exit photos could be any location, and as such ECP has failed to indisputably relate the photo to the location stated. The leaving photo is pitch-black. It identifies no car nor VRM. This cannot serve as proof of any car leaving the car park, nor any length of parking

Planning Permission: ECP has failed to provide evidence that the correct planning applications were submitted and approved prior to the date of the incident

Redx

looks good but I get that to 2024 characters, so close but not within 2000 , sorry

Redx

SamJ84 wrote: »

Frustration of contract ECP has provided no proof the provided payment methods were working and fault free. Nor have they shown signs instructing the driver how to pay by phone, only a number and app to use. ECP has also failed to show prominent signs on site such that the party must have known and agreed terms it was the driver's responsibility to check for other payment methods or find alternative parking to avoid a PCN being issued in the event of a machine fault

POPLA is reminded that you are an evidence-based appeals service ONLY, which requires omissions in evidence to be noticed

Signs The evidence provided by ECP prove my points concerning the signs and not the points made by ECP, particularly regarding entrance signs and the £100 parking charge

Additionally, much of the sign evidence provided are from sections of the car park not visible from where the car was parked. At least one sign has a different site number, one has outdated tariffs, and some taken after the incident date

ANPR ECP has failed to show any signs transparently warning drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for, which is a failure to identify its commercial intent

Landowner Authority There is no indication who the signatories are or whether they have the authority to sign on the company’s behalf. I also believe this contract was altered after it was signed, with dates recently added to authorisation instruction 5

Period Parked Photos claiming to show a car entering and leaving is insufficient evidence of a car being parked for the duration claimed

Entry & Exit photos could be any location, so ECP has failed to indisputably relate the photo to the location stated. The leaving photo is pitch-black. It identifies no car nor VRM. This cannot serve as proof of any car leaving the car park, nor any length of parking

Planning Permission ECP has failed to provide evidence that the correct planning applications were submitted & approved prior to the incident date

try that amended version if you like ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (1994 chars)

SamJ84

Redx wrote: »

looks good but I get that to 2024 characters, so close but not within 2000 , sorry

Really? The word count in word says its 1990 characters with spaces. Are you including the top line of the post before the rebuttal starts?

KeithP

Changing your last sentence to

ECP has not shown that the correct planning applications were in place prior to the date of the incident

...is enough.

SamJ84

Redx wrote: »

try that amended version if you like ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (1994 chars)

Word says thats 1976 characters with spaces. Can Microsoft word character count not be trusted?