Urgent Help with POPLA Appeal – Permit Parking

Bl0w1ngBubbles

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Can you add a point that tells POPLA that there is no evidence that the previous registration of this staff car had 'expired' and attach something to prove it was registered, without admitting it had expired?


It would put UKPC on the spot to prove the registered car suddenly wasn't registered. Maybe they can't prove it to POPLA so have that as point #1.

Point 1 refers, please let me know if you think it will suffice.

Coupon-mad

Yes the Aldi email is good evidence, if you actually screenshot it and then embed the image into point #1, rather then just quote from it, as POPLA will not see that as evidence as you could have invented it!

Don't attach thing separately for POPLA to have to go looking for. Have every image embedded in the word document then save it as a PDF so it can be uploaded on the POPLA website under OTHER only.

I would remove this bit though, as it doesn't help:

Attached is a copy of an extract from an email exchange on 26/06/2019 10:39 from UKPC Customer Services to Aldi:
"I have checked our records and can see that this vehicle had previously been added to a temporary permit which had now expired. Unfortunately because of this I am unable to cancel the parking charge and would recommend the driver appeals at ukappeals co uk'

luxardo

waamo wrote: »

To any and all users. Please ignore the poor so called "advice" from this poster. They are giving misleading information that will result in a very stressful court claim. It's a lot easier to win at POPLA than defend yourself in court.
Ridiculous advice, if you have a solid defence it is always easier to win at court. POPLA just uphold the terms of the implied contract.

Their aim appears to be designed to get you to pay and it's clear they work for a parking company.

Pathetic accusation, look at any advice I've given on this forum and you will see it is factual, accurate and very very good

Bl0w1ngBubbles

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes the Aldi email is good evidence....I would remove this bit though, as it doesn't help:

image to be inserted text removed.

Le_Kirk

2) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is not a registered user and does not have a valid permit to park.

If you are going to keep this in and, not withstanding what KeithP said about "registered user", I would rework it as, in its current form, it is a double negative.

Bl0w1ngBubbles

Le_Kirk wrote: »

If you are going to keep this in and, not withstanding what KeithP said about "registered user", I would rework it as, in its current form, it is a double negative.

Would it be better if I put:

The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge'?

Bl0w1ngBubbles

As suggested on both mine and my mum's post I have today emailed the CEO of Aldi regarding this ridiculous case and venting my frustration!

With your help I have edited my draft POPLA appeal above on post #6. I am currently gathering all of my evidence i.e. photos etc and attaching to the appeal which I intend on sending @ 2pm before I leave for work. Please could you take a look to ensure I have understood your comments and amended it correctly.

Thank you for all your help.