Meadowhall Car Park

CossieA

Though I’d responded to this - no photos but MBs photo shows the car in front of the space I’m meant to be “obstructing” can easily park in the space ie if it pulled forward so no obstruction

RobinofLoxley

Without seeing the photos it's difficult to understand why MB allege the vehicle was causing an obstruction.

MB should email you a copy of their evidence pack when they submit it to POPLA. You then have 7 days to submit any comments you have re their evidence. Pick as many holes in it as you can.

I would keep checking POPLA's portal just in case MB have submitted their evidence to POPLA but haven't sent you a copy.

CossieA

Excellent I have all my further points written down ready & im checking the portal daily - it’s 7 days since I put the POPLA appeal in. as for obstruction just on white line of bay & I made it clear in the appeal to POPLA by quoting the two reasons for the charge saying that they had not been breached - fingers crossed

Umkomaas

CossieA wrote: »

Excellent I have all my further points written down ready & im checking the portal daily - it’s 7 days since I put the POPLA appeal in. as for obstruction just on white line of bay & I made it clear in the appeal to POPLA by quoting the two reasons for the charge saying that they had not been breached - fingers crossed

The PPC have 21 days in which to submit their evidence, so perhaps a bit early in the process to be expecting anything much at this point.

However, don't forget to check your Spam/Junk folder too, because we've seen posters miss PPC evidence packs which have gone into Spam/Junk and fail to respond in time.

CossieA

Hello - So MB have provided their evidence to POPLA and here is my draft response - any help would be appreciated:

Dear Sirs

I am writing in response to Minster Baywatch’s evidence ("MB"). MB claim I am in breach of their terms and conditions of parking as stated on parking signs displayed in Meadowhall car park for the following reasons.

“Vehicle was not parked in a designated parking area”
“Vehicle was parked causing an obstruction”

The parking terms and conditions as set out on parking signs state:

“Vehicles must park in designated parking areas and must not cause an obstruction”
“Vehicles must not park on double yellow lines, footways, access roads or hatched areas”

I was parked in “designated parking areas”. The parking signs at Meadowhall do not stipulate vehicles must park in “a” singular designated parking space. Furthermore, parking signs do not stipulate that vehicles must be parked wholly within marked bays nor do the signs state that cars should not park over white lines as is stated in many other car parking company’s signs and in many instances diagrams are also given detailing this.

My vehicle was not parked so as to cause an obstruction as there was nothing to obstruct.

“A vehicle causing an obstruction is one which has been parked and left unattended in such a way that it is considered to be a hazard to pedestrians or other road users. For example, a car parked on a bend in the road. This also includes blocking free passage to pedestrians”

The signage in the car park forms the “parking contract” and I have not breached this contract for the reasons stated above.

Redx

Remove all the preamble etc , stick to short bullet points rebutting their claims

Read other recent popla rebuttals to see what they said

Look for signage issues , contract errors etc

Keep it under 2000 characters

Coupon-mad

Did they show landowner authority? Or did you not put them to proof of that anyway?

Did they supply photos proving this was a non designated area (hatched lines etc)?

Those are the things to home in on, and ONLY in bullet points, no sentences!

CossieA

if you mean by landowner authority as the contract between them and the shopping center they have included this in evidence.

It was parked in a bay but on/over white lines of bay - no hatchings and it doesn't say in their signs you need to park wholly inside a bay or not parking over white line so I was parked in a designated parking area

Redx

So is that contract signed by the actual landowner ?
Do the signatories explain their role ?
Is it in date and not expired ?
Is it redacted or clearly set out ?

Remember , you are looking for failures on their side or proof of your appeal points

Ditto with signage , look for issues in bay markings and signage , anything that proves your case

Do not write it like a letter , just bullet point the issues with their evidence and/or where it backs up your appeal

Your signs and bay reply above is exactly similar to a bullet point rebuttal on signs and markings

CossieA

The licence agreement refers to "the site" in the header and gives a name and address which is not the name or address of the shopping centre and refers to providing services to the site throughout the document which has also been redacted in the middle. ?????