Parking Eye - POPLA appeal, St James Retail Park Northampton

Redx

Construct a short rebuttal of anything they missed that supports your popla appeal and also anything they included that works in your favour

Look for signage issues , pofa issues , BPA Cop issues , landowner contract to be signed properly by the correct entity and currently in force

Read previous popla rebuttals to get more insight into what they said

Keep it short and sweet and to the point as you only have 2000 characters to play with

One killer argument will win it for you, which if they allowed 10 minutes for entry then the extra 6 minutes to exit is reasonable and less than the minimum 10 minutes allowed for departure

Umkomaas

and a pre-written witness statement from a representative acting on behalf of the Landowner, which is signed and darted 10/07/19.

As that date is after the date of the parking incident, there has been no evidence produced by PE that they had landowner authority at the relevant time. Make sure you build this very potent point into your rebuttal.

pret32

Thanks Red X I will begin to draft a rebuttal.

Umkomaas wrote: »

As that date is after the date of the parking incident, there has been no evidence produced by PE that they had landowner authority at the relevant time. Make sure you build this very potent point into your rebuttal.

Umkomaas, this sounds like a really good point to include. However I have just checked the written statement and point 5 states that Operator had authority to issue a PCN for the parking event dates 08/02/19 - 08/07/19.


Therefore should I not include this point?


Thanks

Redx

Read this thread that's just been bumped

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5995243/parkingeye-popla-appeal

Umkomaas

pret32 wrote: »

Umkomaas, this sounds like a really good point to include. However I have just checked the written statement and point 5 states that Operator had authority to issue a PCN for the parking event dates 08/02/19 - 08/07/19.


Therefore should I not include this point?


Thanks

Read very carefully what the BPA Code of Practice requires of the PPC before starting to operate on the land. They have produced no such evidence of authority. Include a short sentence to state this and quote the relevant para reference of the CoP in your rebuttal (no need to include all of the following - but this is what the CoP says)

7. Written authorisation of the landowner

7.1. If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent).The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges.

7.2. If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

7.3. The written authorisation must also set out:
a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and
enforcement operations, including any restrictions on
hours of operation
c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles
that may, or may not, be subject to parking control
and enforcement
d who has the responsibility for putting up and
maintaining signs
e the definition of the services provided by each party
to the agreement

7.4. Our compliance team are responsible for making sure that you follow the Code. If the team give you reasonable notice, you must allow our appointed manager to inspect the landowner’s written authorisation

Coupon-mad

But I think your main chance of winning is to remind POPLA of this, and the circumstances that mean manoeuvring through this site and parking/leaving can be slower than usual:

- 6 minutes taken before being able to park and read the new signs at this particular site is a reasonable period.

- 10 minutes is a reasonable grace period to exit the car park after the parking contract has ended.

Never talk about 16 minutes in any reply you make to POPLA. Split it.

pret32

Thanks for all your comments today. See below my draft POPLA rebuttal, currently at 1,967 characters;


POPLA Assessor,
Observations from P.E.’s evidence pack;
1. P.E. no acknowledgement of exit grace period
2. P.E. have produced no such evidence of landowner authority
3. Signage out of date and not readable
Response
1. P.E. acknowledge they have a minimum grace period on entry of 10 minutes for the driver to agree to the parking terms and conditions. In this case, 6 minutes were taken by the driver before being able to park and read the signs.
P.E. have not however acknowledged there is an exit grace period; outlined in BPA CoP [Jan 2019] s13.2 & s13.4, which states that there is an exit grace period (minimum of 10 minutes) for the driver to leave the car park after the parking contract has ended. In this case, 10 minutes were taken before leaving the car park.
2. P.E. have provided only a written statement in Section G, signed & dated 10.07.2019 on behalf of. This statement does not show any details of contract with the landowner, nor does it provide evidence of exemptions in accordance with the request (section 2 in the appeal). As per the BPA CoP [Jan 2019] s7.3 there are a five points the written authorisation must address, none of which are provided in the witness statement from P.E. Furthermore, the written statement does not provide ANY reference to the specific address or location of the site, but simply refers to it as ‘St James Retail Park’, which may be another site within the UK which bears the same name.
3. P. E. have provided photos of signage in Section F. Pic 1 & 2 (page 28-29) were taken in June 2015, and are over 4 years old, and therefore are not representative of the current state of the signage. Pic 3 & 4 (page 30-31) were taken in May 2018. Furthermore, the terms on the bottom of ‘Sign Type 2’ and ‘Sign Type 3’ (page 36 & page 37 respectively) are near impossible to read when colour printed from the pack. If the signs are not readable on an A4 piece of paper, it is hard to comprehend reading these above eye level when erected on site.


Comments welcome..

Coupon-mad

Looks fine to me.

pret32

Just submitted - thanks for all your help so far. Fingers crossed!

Redx

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Looks fine to me.

I agree, looks ok to me too, fingers crossed and keep checking your email spam folder