Portswood centre (another) - should I get personal?

Fruitcake

BeachLlama wrote: »

Thank you all. I've drafted a 5 page response. Thank you especially notaskyofearth, whose work I have heavy sampled from.


I've left things in here that I'm doubtful of because your feedback would be very welcome.


Hopefully, you can view it here: we.tl/t-ylBFFcYTV4

http://we.tl/t-ylBFFcYTV4

Remove the bit, "Without Prejudice". I suggest you look up what it means and why it's not a good idea to use the expression.

Also remove this, "have struggled to find evidence myself about the ownership of this land but" so that the sentence reads, "I have determined that the land is managed by KMP Solutions."

Do add this extract from notaskyofearth's post 7 from this thread.

Britannia Parking is not operating under contract with any company responsible for managing these premises. The management changed hands on 14th December 2018, from CBRE Ltd to KMP Solutions.

A senior executive from CBRE Ltd, confirmed that his clients “sold this property some time ago” and that CBRE is “no longer involved with its management.” The current agents for the landowner are a company called KMP Solutions. A very helpful representative from that company confirmed that they are “no longer on contract” with Britannia and have ceased correspondence with them owing to “all the complaints” they have received about them. He also told me that have "since served [Britannia] notice that [KMP] will not be renewing the contract and that they should begin decommissioning the site for the incoming parking firm".


I think this bit is irrelevant, "Further evidence of lack of legitimate interest to enforce this charge for this car park is that the nearby car park run by the local authority is free to park on Sundays.

I supply below photographic evidence of the parking situation at the same time on a Sunday demonstrating how much space is available."

Replace the inadequate signage point you have used with the very long one from post 3 of the NEWBIES, including your own pics of the signs if they help your case.

MistyZ

Editing the post I just made as have now viewed your appeal. I need to come back to it this evening but for now, I see that you have included my 'favourite' sign, the one up on the back wall of the shops. To view it one would need to drag a big wheelie bin into place, then climb up on it & read the sign while hanging onto the railings. Have you commented on it? Definitely need to say that it is virtually impossible to read due to its location.

There is also a t&c sign amidst 6 or 7 others, behind a low wall. Trouble is, in order to read it it is necessary to stand in the roadway on which cars drive as soon as they come out of the entrance 'tunnel'.

And said tunnel is poorly lit plus who scrutinises the sides of a gloomy tunnel while entering it from a busy road? Yet that is where the largest signs are.

Could you get some more signage photos? There are at least 4 signs that are worthy of (negative) comment.

I agree with everything Fruitcake says. Additionally, there are 3 occasions where you use the heading '.... BPO Code of Practise'. It's just a small thing but this should be '...BPA Code of Practice'.

Mahershalalhashbaz

The appeal to POPLA seems quite compelling to me, and makes the point quite clearly that Britannia is operating without the present landowner's written consent.

I am a little concerned by the discrepancies in statements provided by the new landowner's agents. The quotes below are similar to the feedback I received when I phoned KMP Solutions a few months back, and it was hinted rather than categorically stated that Britannia would not be retained on account of bad feedback received about them.

Fruitcake wrote: »

http://we.tl/t-ylBFFcYTV4
The current agents for the landowner are a company called KMP Solutions. A very helpful representative from that company confirmed that they are “no longer on contract” with Britannia and have ceased correspondence with them owing to “all the complaints” they have received about them. He also told me that have "since served [Britannia] notice that [KMP] will not be renewing the contract and that they should begin decommissioning the site for the incoming parking firm". .

Yet the email from KMP Solutions copied in the appeal suggests that this company is now seeking a new agreement with Britannia.

MistyZ

I've located my POPLA appeal (unused as CBRE cancelled PCN).

Plenty of comments on signage e.g. annotation to 'tunnel' image:

'Entrance signs in this car park are located on the walls of the archway that leads to the car park. Visibility in the archway is poor throughout the day (see figure 1 below). The archway is at a junction controlled by traffic lights. Vehicles entering it therefore do so from any of 3 roads. This means that anyone entering the car park cannot stop to read the signs due to the likelihood of another vehicle following closely behind. The signs are located well above a car driver’s eye level (see figure 2 below).'

I'll post other comments if they might be useful for you to use / amend.

BeachLlama

Because I was not the one who parked, I've not really considered the signage much as this site. Thank you so much for your comments. I'll go and take some more photos and add them in.

BeachLlama

Do add this extract from notaskyofearth's post 7 from this thread.

Britannia Parking is not operating under contract with any company responsible for managing these premises. The management changed hands on 14th December 2018, from CBRE Ltd to KMP ...

My concern with this is that the following comments were not made to me and I can therefore not evidence them - except by pointing to this thread.

Coupon-mad

You don't need to evidence them. They need to disprove it.

Fruitcake

As above, you state that the scammers did not have a contract with the MA operating at the time of the alleged event. You put them to strict proof that this is not the case.

Anything you aver, the scammers have to disprove.

MistyZ

BeachLlama wrote: »

Because I was not the one who parked, I've not really considered the signage much as this site. Thank you so much for your comments. I'll go and take some more photos and add them in.

I wouldn't say that signage is the key, your best card still seems to be No Landowner Authority. But as the photo you did take shows (funny, I took almost exactly the same shot) the signage there is very poor and is therefore worth including in some detail.

I think the best POPLA appeals I've seen include the standard wording about regulations and guidelines - as provided by the links in the Newbies' thread - but also the appellant's own clear comments showing exactly how that specific car park breaches those regulations and guidelines.

POPLA assessors can be fickle / useless. With a good case you have reason to be optimistic, but the more you throw at them the better, especially if it's very relevant as is criticism of that signage.

MistyZ

Hi BeachLlama.

Have you seen Mirrorcarp's recent post? They won their POPLA appeal on poor signage in Portswood Centre car park:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5975753/portswood-centre-britannia-and-land-management#topofpage