Fistral Beach, Newquay, INITIAL Parking CO. PCN - NTK

Redx

Please start your own thread if you want help, because we will only help the original owner of this thread, as will you in your own thread

Redx

At crazy Arnold

Read recent popla rebuttals, construct your own using less than 2000 characters

Then post it below for critique and advice

crazyarnold

Thanks REDX will do, but where do i find the rebuttals.... do you have a link ?

Le_Kirk

They will be in the NEWBIE sticky post # 3 where you found the POPLA appeals. Go to post # 3 and scroll down to here, the keep reading: -

AFTER SUBMITTING YOUR POPLA APPEAL:

If the PPC contests the POPLA appeal, they will put on the Portal (and maybe also send to you) their POPLA evidence pack. It is NOT from POPLA not the decision!

This is your chance to comment on the crappy evidence from the scumbags.

YOU REALLY MUST COMMENT, BUT KEEP IT VERY CONCISE TO FIT COMMENTS IN THE PORTAL.

crazyarnold

Le-Kirk

Can you please provide a link ?

Le_Kirk

No need for a link, two clicks back (to get to first page of forum) and then it is the third thread down called NEWBIES read this first.

Redx

crazyarnold wrote: »

Thanks REDX will do, but where do i find the rebuttals.... do you have a link ?

Use the forum Search box and suitable search words to find them

Rebuttals are in threads where people are ahead of you and your appeal

I have posted in several of them, some recently

I won't be posting links because you are expecting me to do the searching whereas that is your job , plus it's much harder for me to do on my tablet and I won't be switching my laptop on to do your work

MinnieSox9

Sorry I’m new to this and don’t know how it works ! Sorry

Coupon-mad

See my signature. You are 2 clicks away. We will not provide a link to the NEWBIES!

crazyarnold

How about the following response: ?

In making your assessment I ask the POPLA assessor to consider the following in further support of my original POPLA appeal as submitted in June 2019.

1. The NTK fails to comply with POFA 2012. Since the contravention date is 26th May, & the NTK should have arrived within 14 days i.e by 9th June. However, the date of issue of NTK was 7th June and I did not receive it even until after 14th June.
The purported date of issue of the Notice to Keeper, being a Friday (7th June), was too late to be deemed delivered by day 14. I did not receive it until 17th June so clearly it wasn't actually posted on the date the aggressive parking firm say it was, but even if POPLA are minded to believe that it was posted on that Friday, under the POFA stated interpretation of days of service, it was not deemed delivered until the following Monday/Tuesday 10th/11th June which is beyond 14 days and too late for keeper liability. This timeline is not open to Assessor interpretation or the biased opinion of POPLA's sector 'expert'. The NTK being deemed delivered at the earliest on day 15/16 means as a matter of law and fact, this PCN was not properly given.
As this requirement set out in schedule 4, paragraph 9, subparagraph 4, 5 & 6 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 has not been complied with, therefore there can be no keeper liability.

2. There seems to be no valid copy of an unredacted contract included between Initial Parking and the Car Park, which could include information about 'money changing hands' in the contract - thus hiding information that could be relevant to the cost calculation fails to meet the strict proof of contract terms needed.
In any case, the document submitted by Initial Parking does not mention who the landowner is and also the contract shows manual overwriting on the “Landowner” & “Code of Practice” which makes this contract void. Also, there is no evidence whether the overwriting was done before/after the contract was signed. Most importantly the contract does not bear/have signature from Landowner (or their appointed agent), which again makes this contract invalid. Also, there is no contract expiry date mentioned on this evidence.

3. Signage- The colours blue and yellow are specifically mentioned in the BPA Code of Practice as the sort of bright colour contrasts to avoid. Use of capital letters and mixing large and small font are also deemed unclear as far as signage is concerned. Initial Parking have mixed this into their signs despite the fact they appear to be new and should match the requirements of the BPA CoP.
Furthermore it simply would not be possible to read any signs whilst in a moving car, and certainly not have read them sufficiently to have be deemed to fully understand the T&C's to which it is alleged I agreed as the registered keeper of the vehicle. Initial Parking's own 'evidence' photos show that a number of the signs are perpendicular to the flow of traffic, and by their own admission since the driver "drove off" logically indicating they did not deem the contact acceptable thus rejecting it - Again there is no evidence of a signage in place where the vehicle would have been parked. Also, the Initial Parking's own 'evidence' photos show that a signage are difficult to read during bright sunny day without putting strain on people’s eye and risk damaging their eye sight. The Terms & Condition signage is so long and such small texts that it would definitely spoil people’s vision on a bright sunny day.

4. There is no Genuine Pre-estimated of Loss breakdown included to show how they have come up with £100: As business costs are not losses and they cannot be passed down to a motorist as GPEOL. Despite submitting this huge 'evidence' pack they have failed to do this.
The Operator rejected the Appellant’s representations, as set out in the correspondence they sent because, they state that a breach of the car park conditions had occurred by breaching the terms and conditions of a private car park. The Operator has not even enclosed a breakdown of their loss (in money) they incur as result of breach.
The burden of proof is on the Operator to prove their case on balance of probabilities and I am therefore, not satisfied that the Operator has proved that the parking charge represents a genuine pre-estimate of loss.