POPLA appeal for PE gym use

DesignMonkey

Hi guys

I've read up on the POPLA appeal process and have a list of points and phrases I can raise in order to get my argument across but there are a couple of factors in my case that I haven't read examples of so would like advice please as to whether they're good points.

Back story - As gym member you get 3 hours free parking. You need to enter your registration number when at gym. I am keeper of vehicle but my partner was actually driving that day. They used gym for 1 hour but then bumped into someone on way to car and chatted for about 1 hour. So in total was in car park for just over 2 hours.

Now I stupidly didn't even realise these forums existed otherwise I would have followed the 'don't name the driver' argument (sorry, yes shout at me and call me stupid, all my fault). So sadly upon receiving the PCN I replied saying my partner was using car that day. I did this because I could also provide the gym log in as evidence they were using the gym as per agreement - it has their name and login / out times so I thought the names would need to match otherwise I would have no argument. Anyhow, they replied asking for full name /address details. I provided them. They replied saying original PCN was cancelled and gave new PCN - appeal not accepted based on 'no electronic permit being obtained'.

QUESTION 1 - As I haven't received new letter in partners name - IS THIS STRONG ARGUMENT TO USE IN POPLA APPEAL as they never changed PCN to partners name, and so surely me as keeper am no longer liable and they're going after wrong person?? Something under Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012?

QUESTION 2 - wrt gym sign in pad. Now previously the sign in pads broke and were not usable for weeks. We asked staff and they said 'oh don't worry, no need to sign in'. so we didn't. we went away for couple of months so cancelled membership to save money and then rejoined when we returned home. Little did we realise that new pads had been installed and now HAD to be used. DO WE HAVE ANY ARGUMENT WITH THIS? By that I mean based along the lines that previously we were told not to bother with signing in; then when we rejoined but had no induction with staff so they couldn't tell us about new pads now working; new sign in pads not in prominent location (can only be seen if use separate sex changing rooms and we use the outside lockers only so never pass them); rules about signing in are not in online Rules just generic 'using car park facilities in accordance with parking provider' etc etc... Only thing to check is if it states rules on car park signs about electronic permit. If it doesn't then technically we're not breaking the rules...right?

QUESTION 3 - Other concern is how to cover the extra 1 hour after signing out of gym and before leaving car park due to chatting to someone. My partner didn't go shopping elsewhere but will they use the chatting as 'not gym use'??

I am also going to do the following:
- talk to manager - using above sign in pad argument?
- write to MP
- check signs to see what rules are stated wrt gym users
- gym pads not in prominent location

I read few appeal successes stating byelaws but I didn't fully understand what this meant - is there somewhere where it's put in simple terms please? eg "The appellant explains the land is subject to bye-laws and not relevant land as defined within The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The appellant has provided evidence in support of their appeal. As there is a reasonable suspicion that byelaws apply to the 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 subject to byelaws. As the operator has done neither, this appeal is allowed."


As a side we actually got a PCN about 4 days prior to this one where I WAS the driver and provided my gym log in/out record as evidence and it was accepted. So i'm unsure why this exact same scenario has been refused...possibly because of the extra 1 hour after signing out of gym and before leaving car park?? Should we mention this in appeal to POPLA as a lack on consistency, or is it totally irrelevant to the current appeal? We did ask PE advisor on phone and she was confused as to why they refused one and accepted the other.

Sorry if I've missed anything elsewhere but these are not the normal circumstances and if they are good points then want to make sure I use them right.

Thank you

The_Deep

PE signs leave a lot to be desired, I doubt that many judges would agree that they are capable of forming a contract, read this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5972164/parking-eye-signs-oxford-road-reading

and enlist the support of your MP as they are obviously trying to scam you.

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

MistyZ

I suspect that mentioning the apparent lack of consistency won't help. Though perhaps a complaint to the BPA is in order.

All the mitigating factors you mention won't be relevant to a POPLA appeal. However they will be relevant in a basically polite but nonetheless assertive complaint to the gym. If they are the landowner they will have the authority to cancel the charge. If they're not then they need to let you know who is ASAP as landowner complaints are best done before starting POPLA.

If complaining to a landowner other than the gym, include the gym log. I wouldn't worry about the chatting, don't flag it up. The gym user thought the car could be parked for 3 hours as usual because they were not informed that the sign-in system had been reinstated. You are going to have to be very single-minded with no element of 'silly me' in sight. You may have to persevere too.

Don't phone P.E. again, they're not friendly and if they did appear friendly I'd be even more worried!

I realise you're wanting to get started on your POPLA appeal in case you do need it. Take photos of the signage in the car park and also as many as possible that illustrate how inadequate the warnings about the new equipment are inside the gym.

Coupon-mad

They replied saying original PCN was cancelled and gave new PCN - appeal not accepted based on 'no electronic permit being obtained'.

Wait, they didn't re-issue it in your partner's name, just yours again?

Or was that second one just the usual Reminder that arrives anyway?

Can you prove you gave her name and address, as that IS an appeal point!

QUESTION 1 - As I haven't received new letter in partners name - IS THIS STRONG ARGUMENT TO USE IN POPLA APPEAL as they never changed PCN to partners name, and so surely me as keeper am no longer liable and they're going after wrong person?? Something under Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012?

You are right.

DesignMonkey

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Wait, they didn't re-issue it in your partner's name, just yours again?

Or was that second one just the usual Reminder that arrives anyway?

Can you prove you gave her name and address, as that IS an appeal point!

You are right.

No they didn't reissue a written posted PCN with new number in partners name. I just got a reminder through post in my name for original PCN. All they did was say in an email (in response to my original appeal submission) 'we have now updated the details and a revised PCN will be sent to you shortly, new ref XXX'...but nothing arrived.

When i replied asking to confirm it was now just that new number they didn't answer me and just gave me POPLA number . So I am assuming if it gets to POPLA stage I can argue that they are pursuing wrong person (ie keeper not driver)?

Also, update on signage. Went yesterday and signs are all very clear in view etc BUT there is no mention whatsoever that an electronic permit is required if using the gym, just the standard 1 hr free for anyone. So the fact they have refused appeal with only reason being that we didn't have electronic permit goes out window as they don't actually tell me i need one...right? And the gym rules don't state it, just say 'as per parking provider rules'... and their rules aren't there sooooo case closed?! :rotfl: