Port of Wells POPLA Appeal Advice

Lizb59

If the incident took place before the time limit was changed is it worth him mentioning the changes to back up his case?

KeithP

Lizb59 said:

ZZPS letter wasn't a debt collector letter. It was one of the letters sent demanding payment.

Errr... then what is a debt collectors letter if it isn't one demanding payment of an alleged debt?

Any letter from ZZPS is a debt collectors letter - sent by a debt collector.

Coupon-mad

FrankCannon said:

What was the date of the event ? The grace period was changed from 10 minutes to 15 minutes in May 2019 ( see attached letter from the Harbour Master to Norman Lamb MP ), so if it took place before the change took place, then CEL need to provide contemporaneous images. You should ask them for images of all of the signs facing the road at the entrance to the car park too, and make sure that you get images of signs erected by the Harbour Commissioners.

Lizb59 said:

If the incident took place before the time limit was changed is it worth him mentioning the changes to back up his case?

Yes, especially if the parking event was not long before, because that Harbour Master letter says they have already 'reviewed it with the parking firm' and so it is clear that review must have taken place some weeks before the signs were changed and that letter was issued.  So the authority from the Harbour Master was that the ten minutes had been reviewed and changed to a more reasonable 15 minutes, due to complaints.

Also suggest that the Defendant believes the clock on the ANPR camera system at the entrance was not correct, and puts the Claimant to strict proof as to when that clock was checked and digitally synchronised with GMT or BST, as the case may be. 

Lizb59

Thank you for your advice so far. I am attaching my son's draft defence. Please can someone check this for me.
Many thanks.

KeithP

The first thing to do is remove that link from your most recent post.

You have clearly shown the whole world, including the parking companies, not only your son's court claim number, but also his full name.

Lizb59

Ah ok thanks.

Lizb59

I have removed attachment as I forgot to remove identifying information so will repost when my son has removed this info.

In the meantime one query I have is that originally the amount of the claim was £182 but this has gone up to a lot more than this now which is presumably to include legal costs and interest. Should he quote the amount of £182 or the current amount? The reason I ask is because someone in a previous post said not to include the interest being charged so would like to know the reason for not including the full amount.

KeithP

Quite simply... adding interest is allowable.

You are not objecting to the interest element.

Lizb59

Here is edited attachment without identifying info. Thanks in advance.

Le_Kirk

FrankCannon said:

What was the date of the event ? The grace period was changed from 10 minutes to 15 minutes in May 2019 ( see attached letter from the Harbour Master to Norman Lamb MP ), so if it took place before the change took place, then CEL need to provide contemporaneous images. You should ask them for images of all of the signs facing the road at the entrance to the car park too, and make sure that you get images of signs erected by the Harbour Commissioners.

Mr NNNNNNN clearly states that he went off for a walk before he realised it was a "pay and display" car park and he had ten minutes to purchase a ticket after entry, if he was concerned it would have been best for him to have left the car park and parked elsewhere or left at the exit and returned back in at the entry so that the cameras recorded him leaving.

This extract above from the letter made I larf!  Why would anyone, who is already at risk of "not paying within their self-imposed limit of 10 minutes"  then increase the risk by leaving and re-entering giving rise to either "no return within...." issues or an infamous double dip?