Popla appeal of one parking solution pcn stanmer Park

waamo

Say by their own admission the land is council owned. The LGO has made it clear private parking rules don't apply. POFA does not apply on council owned land and this has been repeatedly upheld. No keeper liability exists and the driver has not been identified.

Madpye

The contract is with bhcc and one parking....

waamo

Madpye wrote: »

The contract is with bhcc and one parking....

No denying it then, it's council land.

Madpye

You’re a star... thank you. I shall just say that then in my comments..

MistyZ

Don't panic. This may seem like a tough call but the PPC try it on at every stage, the fact that they have provided so-called evidence doesn't mean they've actually managed to refute anything.

Re. council land, if you have enough characters (and I think you probably will) you could quote their contradictory statement and then point out exactly how it is contradictory in addition to following waamo's advice.

In other words, people sometimes win at this point just by pointing out the bleeding obvious in a way that makes it so to all but the doziest of POPLA assessors.

Madpye

Ok I’ll give it a go... thanks for your advice too mistyz!

Coupon-mad

You do realise this is NOT POPLA replying to you?! Clearly not POPLA. This is OPS's own written statement of case & evidence, that's all. Perfectly normal.

Add these words to your brief comments, without saying who parked(!):

Since it is common ground that this is BHCC-owned local authority land, I would expect the operator to do one of two things, demonstrate the keeper is the driver or demonstrate the land they manage is NOT Council-owned and thus is 'relevant land' after all, to enable them to continue to pursue a registered keeper. As the operator has done neither, and by contrast, the appellant has shown the land is a Local Authority park and the operator has agreed, this is indisputably not 'relevant land' as defined in the POFA and in the absence of evidence of the driver, this appeal must be allowed.

ParkingMad

Some comments about One Parking Solution by the Brighton and Peacehaven MP Lloyd Russell-Moyle:

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2294247314122381&id=186537616 %20%200342834


Lloyd Russell-Moyle MP
12 July at 02:48 ·
I am a regular at Greggs and a big fan of their sausage rolls but my inbox has been filling up with some very unhappy customers.

It seems the new Peacehaven shop has become a money spinner of a different kind not for Greggs but for a private parking company.

This morning my office spoke to Peacehaven Greggs staff who said that there are as many as 30 parking tickets a day issued outside the shop.

At £100 a pop that is a potential £3,000 a day from people ducking in for a baked good.

I am writing to the Co-op and Greggs about the seemingly aggressive tactics of One Parking Solution as well as writing to them directly about their aggressive tactics and appeals process.

If you have had a legitimate appeal denied or a negative experience please get in contact with my office on lloyd@russell-moyle.co.uk

Also just a quick final reminder, please don't be rude to the staff in these shops, they haven't made these policy decisions and are just trying to do their jobs.

Madpye

Thank you ALL for your support and advice. Thanks to you I kicked OPS’s butts and won my popla appeal!

hullogullo

Hi, hope this is doing the right thing jumping onto a year old thread, rather than starting a new one.

In exactly the same boat here, so hoping for a spot of guidance on this.

7 days ago today this keepers car got a pcn at Stanmer Park. The parking signs were not at all clear and it was much less clear that the driver was parking in a non-designated parking area (the car was parked well off-road and all verges were occupied by other vehicles - to the uninitiated it looked very much like a permitted parking zone).

I've had a look through the 'newbie' thread and just want to make sure that I've understood and am definitely doing the right thing here!

It is a windscreen ticket from a BPA member.

From this keepers understanding, I believe that the first appeal should be a version of the template provided (the one that begins):

"Re PCN number:

I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn..."

The bit that makes me very nervous about is that the advice seems to be to "appeal online or by email at day 25 or 26". This would seem to raise the stakes as it would take it out of the £60 early-payment (within 14 days) window and up to the £100 full payment point (daylight robbery in either case). Fine if one is 100% sure that they are going to win the appeal, but not terribly appealing otherwise.

It would appear that Madpye did not wait until after this point and still won their appeal, which looks much less nerve-wracking from where I'm sitting.

Also seems to me that there is a fairly robust point to win this on here:

Coupon-mad said:

You do realise this is NOT POPLA replying to you?! Clearly not POPLA. This is OPS's own written statement of case & evidence, that's all. Perfectly normal.

Add these words to your brief comments, without saying who parked(!):

Since it is common ground that this is BHCC-owned local authority land, I would expect the operator to do one of two things, demonstrate the keeper is the driver or demonstrate the land they manage is NOT Council-owned and thus is 'relevant land' after all, to enable them to continue to pursue a registered keeper. As the operator has done neither, and by contrast, the appellant has shown the land is a Local Authority park and the operator has agreed, this is indisputably not 'relevant land' as defined in the POFA and in the absence of evidence of the driver, this appeal must be allowed.

Can anyone confirm that it's not a bad idea to send the template appeal now and then go down this route?

Many thanks!