F1rst Parking POPLA Appeal

tangomango

Hi, first post here, I have searched around for an answer to my particular issue and read the newbies thread but I am unsure of what actions to take so here goes.

I received a Parking Charge Notice on the 12th for parking outside of bay markings at Royal Holloway University. It is a carpark that I have a permit to park in which was on display at this time, and I was not parked dangerously, obstructing any other spaces and had left plenty of room for other cars to get past.

Unfortunately, I panicked and appealed the ticket using their online system the next day on the grounds of mitigating circumstances as I would have made myself late for class had I been searching for somewhere else to park, also identifying myself as the driver. I understand now that I shouldn't have done this, but what's done is done.

They unsurprisingly rejected my appeal and I have until the 3rd to pay the reduced fine of £30 or appeal through POPLA. Now I really don't want to pay this ticket as firstly I feel it is unfair, and secondly as a student I don't really have the money to pay this.

My question is whether it is worth appealing through POPLA or just paying the fine at reduced rate. I'm unsure of what my chances are of winning a second appeal. The signage in the car park does state that you should not be parked outside of bay markings. However the photo provided by F1rst of the signage is illegible and does not reflect how close the signage is to the car. After doing some research it is also arguable that there is no proof provided of an agreement between the landowner (Royal Holloway Uni) and F1rst Parking which authorises F1rst Parking to manage the land and issue notices. I could also argue that the charge is incompatible as I did not cost the company any money, I have a permit to park there and I was not preventing any other cars from accessing the carpark and its spaces.

Any advice is really welcome as this is really stressing me out! Thanks.

Coupon-mad

My question is whether it is worth appealing through POPLA or just paying the fine at reduced rate.

Has to be your decision.

A long POPLA appeal based on our templates sometimes sees a PPC off, but this would have been 100% winnable if you'd appealed as keeper.

Now, it's 50/50 I'd say, and your best hope would be they fail to show landowner authority to POPLA. If they do, I suspect you'd lose the appeal.

Not that this would mean you have to pay, because POPLA isn't binding on you.

You might decide to try POPLA and then sit on your hands of it loses, and see what F1rst do. I assume the PCN itself is only about fifty quid? If so then that's not a huge amount for them to bother to pursue further, and they might decide not to.

Worst case scenario with a £50 PCN pursued on court in the end (if they won) would be you'd pay just over a hundred. That is, if they bother and if they won.

MistyZ

tangomango wrote: »

I could also argue that the charge is incompatible as I did not cost the company any money

Sounds like you already have an angle on what to include in a POPLA appeal. But don't bother with the bit above ('No Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss'), that has been a non-starter since the Beavis case.

If you do decide to appeal to POPLA, make sure you have some photos of awkwardly positioned / unclear signage and just embed them in the body of your appeal.

The landowner situation sounds interesting .... maybe tell us more?

tangomango

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Has to be your decision.

A long POPLA appeal based on our templates sometimes sees a PPC off, but this would have been 100% winnable if you'd appealed as keeper.

Now, it's 50/50 I'd say, and your best hope would be they fail to show landowner authority to POPLA. If they do, I suspect you'd lose the appeal.

Not that this would mean you have to pay, because POPLA isn't binding on you.

You might decide to try POPLA and then sit on your hands of it loses, and see what F1rst do. I assume the PCN itself is only about fifty quid? If so then that's not a huge amount for them to bother to pursue further, and they might decide not to.

Worst case scenario with a £50 PCN pursued on court in the end (if they won) would be you'd pay just over a hundred. That is, if they bother and if they won.

MistyZ wrote: »

Sounds like you already have an angle on what to include in a POPLA appeal. But don't bother with the bit above ('No Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss'), that has been a non-starter since the Beavis case.

If you do decide to appeal to POPLA, make sure you have some photos of awkwardly positioned / unclear signage and just embed them in the body of your appeal.

The landowner situation sounds interesting .... maybe tell us more?

Thank you both for your quick replies! At the moment they are only wanting £30, then this will go up to £60 after the 3rd March. In their rejection email they have said 'if you choose to do nothing, we will seek to recover the monies owed to us through our debt recovery service and may proceed with Court action against you. First Parking may also conduct a search with a credit bureau' - I know this is a threat to try and get me to pay but still scary nonetheless!

In regards to the landowner situation, I found a thread on a different forum of someone who appealed through POPLA at the same university and won, with part of their appeal stating ' There has been no proof provided of an agreement between the landowner and First Parking LLP which authorises First Parking LLP to manage the land and issue notices. The client, Royal Holloway University, have also been unable to provide proof of planning permission for the erection of the signage in relation to parking'. I've just tried posting the link to the forum but I've not got permission.

MistyZ

tangomango wrote: »

In regards to the landowner situation, I found a thread on a different forum of someone who appealed through POPLA at the same university and won, with part of their appeal stating ' There has been no proof provided of an agreement between the landowner and First Parking LLP which authorises First Parking LLP to manage the land and issue notices.

That rather sounds as if the appellant challenged on landowner authority (an easy section to find on the Newbies' thread / in posts that often needs very little 'relevance tweaking') and the PPC failed to produce an agreement when submitting their evidence. Might be worth finding out how recently this was, unless you know already. If it was very recent the chances are there's still no agreement worth producing.

Don't be scared! This forum is a very sound source of information, especially that which emanates from Coupon-mad, Beamer, Fruitcake etc. etc. (you'll soon work out who all the most experienced regulars are), none of them would mislead you re. debt collectors etc.

The_Deep

Have you read this?

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles

Complain to Pals and your MP

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 five readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 7-8 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.

tangomango

MistyZ wrote: »

That rather sounds as if the appellant challenged on landowner authority (an easy section to find on the Newbies' thread / in posts that often needs very little 'relevance tweaking') and the PPC failed to produce an agreement when submitting their evidence. Might be worth finding out how recently this was, unless you know already. If it was very recent the chances are there's still no agreement worth producing.

Don't be scared! This forum is a very sound source of information, especially that which emanates from Coupon-mad, Beamer, Fruitcake etc. etc. (you'll soon work out who all the most experienced regulars are), none of them would mislead you re. debt collectors etc.

The forum is from November 2018 so it's likely that this is still an argument I could run with. It's looking as though if I were to pursue a POPLA appeal my two strongest arguments would be regarding the unclear signage as per the photo F1rst have provided, and the point mentioned above.

Is it also worth mentioning about mitigiating circumstances and not costing the company any money to pad my argument out or is it best to keep it simple?

waamo

I would include landowner authority. The ppc only have to slip up on one point and you win. The more opportunity to slip up the more chance of winning.

Mitigation cuts no ice whatsoever.

Coupon-mad

Is it also worth mentioning about mitigating circumstances and not costing the company any money to pad my argument out or is it best to keep it simple?

Neither. Certainly not mitigating circs or 'no loss caused'. Nope - avoid.

Our long POPLA appeals are often a dozen pages long, and far from simple!

tangomango

waamo wrote: »

I would include landowner authority. The ppc only have to slip up on one point and you win. The more opportunity to slip up the more chance of winning.

Mitigation cuts no ice whatsoever.

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Neither. Certainly not mitigating circs or 'no loss caused'. Nope - avoid.

Our long POPLA appeals are often a dozen pages long, and far from simple!

Thank you both for the responses, in that case I'll leave both points out the appeal. I think i'll appeal through POPLA and only pay anything if I'm absolutely forced to.

Upon returning to the car park today I've noted that there's no signs on the entrance to the car park and that there were multiple cars parked where I was so signage obviously isn't clear enough, I've taken photos of this as well as some pictures of how far away/illegible the signs nearest to where my car was parked was. I'll use these alongside the poor evidence provided by F1rst in the appeal.

Thank you all again for your advice, it's been really helpful!

Coupon-mad

i'll appeal through POPLA and only pay anything if I'm absolutely forced to.

That is ONLY when a Judge says so, at a small claim hearing. Not just because people lose at POPLA (and people do sometimes lose). So what!