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

crazyarnold

I still have to work on word limit 2000, but for now please feedback on this draft response.

KeithP

crazyarnold wrote: »

Le-Kirk

Can you please provide a link ?

You don't need a link.

It is exactly the same post in the NEWBIES thread where you found the PoPLA appeal templates earlier.

Umkomaas

Have Initial Parking actually responded to POPLA by commenting on your appeal points one by one, or have they just sent a load of photos and copies of signs and computer print-offs from their files. I was interested in how they would respond to your appeal point that they failed in terms of dates for keeper liability.

On a quick scan of your links, the landowner contract looks decidedly shaky, lacking in specifics, like who the landowner is, who the squiggle at the foot of the contract belongs to, who he/she represents and what position they hold. Go to town on that (but don't get carried away, remember, just 2k worth of characters for the whole rebuttal!).

crazyarnold

Hi Umkomaas,

Initial Parking responded to POPLA by just sending an evidence pack with loads of photos and copies of signs and computer print-offs from their files with copies of original PCN + original appeal note which i submitted to initial parking, which they rejected adding a rejction note too.

In terms of dates for keeper liability: Please see below pic with details which I see is most relevant to dates/keeper liability, however it means very little. Please also see in pic I note which they have mentioned saying that the charges remain.

Link: https://postimg.cc/CzR9qqpz

Umkomaas

Initial Parking responded to POPLA by just sending an evidence pack with loads of photos and copies of signs and computer print-offs from their files with copies of original PCN + original appeal note which i submitted to initial parking, which they rejected adding a rejction note too.

They should be commenting on your appeal, not just sending a ream of copy and paste paperwork with no individual response to your appeal points, just leaving it to POPLA to sort out and draw their own conclusions. Point that out to POPLA in your rebuttal.

In terms of dates for keeper liability: Please see below pic with details which I see is most relevant to dates/keeper liability, however it means very little. Please also see in pic I note which they have mentioned saying that the charges remain.

The only document relevant to keeper liability (KL) is the Notice to Keeper (NtK). They can copy and paste any number of other notes to try to prove KL, they are irrelevant. Tell that to POPLA in words of one syllable (but not too many characters! ).

Redx

in your draft rebuttal , remove that opening statement , cut out all the unnecessary words , characters and any full stops etc , no flannel , no padding , nothing but facts

anything that is in your favour in their evidence pack use it, like landowner contract , signatures , dates , POFA , BPA CoP failures etc

also point out anything that supports your case or where they have not addressed your appeal points

keep it short and sweet , no need to ask a popla assessor anything at all, or to mention when your popla appeal was, you sign in and copy and paste online , they know its you and when your popla appeal was

its not a letter, its a series of short and concise bullet points

THEY gave a scattergun approach in their evidence pack , here it all is , you at popla can go through it and find what is relevant

YOU on the other hand hit with surgical precision hitting every vulnerable spot you can find, but within 2000 characters, which is not a lot

Coupon-mad

it was not deemed delivered until the following Monday/Tuesday 10th/11th June

Deemed delivered not before Tuesday 11th June. Not the Monday.

That should win your case.

Remove this - you've been reading 4 year old threads! if you found this garbage!

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.

Redx

agreed , point 4) was killed off over 2.5 to 3 years ago with the BARRY BEAVIS case, 3 times , 3 different courts , same outcome


should not even be mentioned

kml

Here is a link to the signage provided by Initial Parking in my POPLA appeal response. In case you want to go down the 'insufficient signage' path as part of your appeal.

hxxps://imgur.com/a/c5XMstZ

Contains Contract between Landowner & all signage from Fistral Beach

Coupon-mad

https://imgur.com/a/c5XMstZ

So the aerial view mock up map admits to NO signs for any of the cars that park facing the beach, then?