POPLA Appeal

Redx

if they said they have landowner authority from M & B, are M & B the landowner or an agent ?

is the contract unredacted, signed by name and job title , and includes the date it started and the period of the contract

was it "in date" at the time of this incident ?

these items are crucial to any parking contract as it must flow from landowner to the claimant and be in date and valid and signed by somebody in authority , its not good enough to state that they have it , they must PROVE that they have it, or fail

ps:- you seem to be doing a good job and having advice like the changes MistyZ proposes helps, thats the point in posting your draft, to see how it can be improved upon

SuperGirl09

All of which may take at the very least 10 minutes, stated in the operators evidence on page 10.

I'll take this out? i think it doesn't read right. Agree?

Redx

maybe , but concentrate on the 2 grace periods in that section , up to 10 minutes to grab a ticket - check - grace period 1 adhered to

a minimum of 10 minutes or longer to leave the car park - check, it took 13 minutes so the driver did intend to leave promptly and did so as soon as they were able , even if there was a longer than usual delay beyond their control which is not unusual for a busy car park

SuperGirl09

Hi Redx

It says - M&B are the client, it appears unredacted, signed by both parties however there are no job titles, only the surname given for M&B and an initial and surname for the representative for ECP.

It expires in 2020 and it has the start date as some time in 2018, this incident was March this year so it is in date.


I did put a 'dead' link earlier in with a copy of it in dropbox, though I have omitted personal info.

Thank you! I honestly would be in tears otherwise or just pay it - as I left another that I am stupidly paying back and I don't know how to cancel it.

Redx

perhaps its Michells and Butler ?

https://www.mbplc.com/aboutus/property/

if the person signing it hasnt given their authority and title , for all we know it could be the tea boy , so query it based on the landowner authority signatory being unknown

if M&B are not fleshed out with full name and address and PLC details, then who knows where it came from ? I bet ECP gave their full name and address and PLC etc

SuperGirl09

ECP Evidence pack claims:

1) Insufficient time purchased
2) They have written authority to operate at M&B Car Park
3) Signs are clear

My Response:

1) I note that ECP have not disputed the fact that the alleged 'overstay' was fully covered by BPA guidelines on Grace Periods. Therefore this appeal should be allowed.

To reiterate from my appeal, BPA guidelines state that a grace period of 10 minutes minimum should be given at the end of a parking action and, as Kevin Reynolds of BPA has clarified, no time limit is specified prior to parking action starting or ending, it could be 5 minutes or 10, depending on circumstances. A ticket was purchased within 10 minutes of the arrival time, therefore the first grace period is adhered to. Upon exit, it took 13 minutes so the driver did intend to leave promptly and did so as soon as they were able, given the circumstances which the driver was under.

2) ECP's close-up images of signs are very misleading as they do not indicate font size or accessibility to the motorist. As in appeal, areas of car park are unsigned, there were no signs in the proximity of the car and no distances are given on the plan provided. Then the driver is to determine whether they wish to remain in that car park by making a payment to commit to the parking on that land. This is without taking into account the circumstances at which the driver was under in the appeal. All of which may take at the very least 10 minutes.

Added your suggestions Redx, thank you.

Redx

driver was under in a very busy car park

SuperGirl09

2) ECP evidence Figure 4 appendix A, does not show evidence of the signatory's title and position and therefore would deem the authority as the landowner unknown.

Would this be enough in either of yours opinions?

Thanks so much!

SuperGirl09

Redx wrote: »

driver was under in a very busy car park

noted and amended! Thank you. (what on earth am I doing?! Sorry!)

ECP Evidence pack claims:

1) Insufficient time purchased
2) They have written authority to operate at M&B Car Park
3) Signs are clear

My Response:

1) I note that ECP have not disputed the fact that the alleged 'overstay' was fully covered by BPA guidelines on Grace Periods. Therefore this appeal should be allowed.

To reiterate from my appeal, BPA guidelines state that a grace period of 10 minutes minimum should be given at the end of a parking action and, as Kevin Reynolds of BPA has clarified, no time limit is specified prior to parking action starting or ending, it could be 5 minutes or 10, depending on circumstances. A ticket was purchased within 10 minutes of the arrival time, therefore the first grace period is adhered to. Upon exit, it took 13 minutes so the driver did intend to leave promptly and did so as soon as they were able, given the circumstances which the driver was under in a very busy car park.

2) ECP evidence Figure 4 appendix A, does not show evidence of the signatory's title and position and therefore would deem the authority as the landowner unknown.

3) ECP's close-up images of signs are very misleading as they do not indicate font size or accessibility to the motorist. As in appeal, areas of car park are unsigned, there were no signs in the proximity of the car and no distances are given on the plan provided. Then the driver is to determine whether they wish to remain in that car park by making a payment to commit to the parking on that land. This is without taking into account the circumstances at which the driver was under in the appeal. All of which may take at the very least 10 minutes.

Redx

re:- landowner authority


I cannot word it for you but I get the gist, so I am sure somebody can hone it into suitable wording that puts landowner authority into doubt