They had a contract demonstrating landowner authority - now what?

wasdwasd1

No, you had till yesterday and I am surprised if the comments portal is still open to you. The first day was 22nd. You don't add seven days ON. You add six!

Many thanks for your reply - thankfully, the portal was still open and I was able to submit my comments. I think this was because 22 + 6 = 28, making yesterday (1 hour ago) the last date at which I could make my submission. Thank god I played it safe - I really did think that I would have until tomorrow!

I would not waste comments on 'compliance with the Companies Act' as this is OUTSIDE the POPLA remit.

Go for grace periods first, and instead of all that waffle just say that it took 6 minutes to find a space and 9 minutes to leave, and EXPLAIN WHY (it was busy, it was a Saturday in a holiday resort/busy city in Summer, and this is why the car had to queue...etc.).

That is what could win it.

Unfortunately I was not able to see your suggestions in time before submitting my comment I think your points woul have been very helpful in this appeal. The final comment that I submitted was as follows:


" CEL have failed to demonstrate any lawful authority.
The ‘contract’ provided does not comply with BPACoP 7.3 (any of a-e), nor with Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006 (legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/44), which requires 2 signatories from each company for a contract to be valid. There is only 1 signatory from 1 company, who is not authorised as defined by para 3 of the Act, and whose position within the company is not given. No proof is shown that they are a company director as required by the Act.
No signatories of the landowner/landholder have been provided whatsoever.
The contract is dated 7/12/18 and is not shown to be relevant to the date of the incident.
While 2 registered companies exist in the UK by the name given in this contract, no identifier is given as to which is relevant.
No proof is given that any company mentioned has landowner rights at this location; that any contract exists between the landowner & CEL; or that any such contract has been executed in compliance with the Companies Act.
No proof is given that the unlit entrance sign is visible/legible in low-light conditions - because it is not. A reasonably attentive driver, having missed this sign, could then drive onto the site, park in the highlighted bays, & enter the cafe without ever being presented with a visible/legible sign indicating any parking limitations.
CEL’s site plan shows their ANPR system to incorporate the Drivethru, while the positioning and wording of their signage clearly imply the restrictions to apply ONLY to the car park. The driver spent many minutes at this Drivethru on the night in question.
CEL acknowledge the minimum 10m grace period to allow a driver to decide whether to enter their contract, but fail to allow a further 10m "TO LEAVE AFTER THE CONTRACT HAS ENDED" (as per BPACoP 30.2, this is separate).
CEL insist that my vehicle exited at 03:45, but the ANPR time shows 03:35, proving CEL to not check their own data properly and their processes to be faulty."


I think I should have expanded on the drive-thru bit and explained that congestion from this avenue contributed to the delay in leaving the premises. I never raised this during my original appeal though, as I got suckered by the 2000 character limits and didn't think that I could simply create a PDF and submit it as evidence. Definitely a learning point for a newbies like me getting ripped off by a PPC for the first time.

Coupon-mad

OK so it may lose and then you can argue it properly at court stage.

None of the stuff about the Companies Act means ANYTHING to POPLA.

wasdwasd1

None of the stuff about the Companies Act means ANYTHING to POPLA.

I see... that's a shame, I spent a lot of my character limit to include that argument.


The appeal still raises the valid point that no landowner authority has been demonstrated, and that the appropriate grace periods were not allowed (although, as you say, I should have expanded on this more). I hope POPLA will take these into account.


How long do they typically take to reach their decision?

Coupon-mad

A week or two from now, I expect. If lost, no paying the scam! It's only POPLA!

I hope you win but struggling to see how POPLA will focus on the grace periods point properly, when it has not been broken down into 2 periods of time before & after parking.

wasdwasd1

If lost, no paying the scam! It's only POPLA!

I absolutely refuse to pay this company for this incident, simply on principle. If it comes to it I'd rather go to court and be heard there than pay this extortion, as scary as that sounds. I feel like I'm going to regret my amateurish POPLA appeal very shortly, but it was a good learning experience I guess.


Many thanks to yourself and to all the contributors to this thread. I will update this thread with POPLA's decision when I receive it, and see where to take things from there.


Thanks again

KeithP

wasdwasd1 wrote: »

If it comes to it I'd rather go to court and be heard there than pay this extortion, as scary as that sounds.

It might sound scary, but have a look at this short video...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=n93eoaxhzpU

Clairns

I went to court and my main fear was the representative for the parking agency would know every loophole about parking- nothing could be further from the truth.

She admitted that she has only been involved with one parking case in her career.......... She also seemed to be incredibly nervous and asked the judge to 'stand down' the case twice so she could take orders from her boss.