POPLA Appeal last day - MET Parking - Brocklebank Retail

The_Deep

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP after the election, or to all likely candidates now, it can cause the scammer extra costs and work, and often, if they know an MP is in the loop, they will cancel the charge..

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, 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.

[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]

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

Redx

Read recent popla rebuttals and draft your own and post it below , ensuring it is 1999 characters (not words) or less

That way people may comment on your rebuttal , but nobody will do the dissection and dissertation for you

Find every error , everywhere they agreed with your popla appeal , or didn't disagree , find the glaringly obvious like pofa , landowner authority and signage issues

Keep the rebuttal draft short and concise , bullet points only , no waffle , no punctuation like full stops , less is more

Le_Kirk

Your links made live: -

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VZquxfggXk9tt8kEVJ0VDVbpea-fKslO/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gmdGSPdWVZprPQIT_qNfLu_a-a_7V7ed/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R8Bz9UqoBmGzMS25JKs7Vlda0tgyKfCN/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SU9qa6g_fGqM_VrDen7BSh8OkHB4-IN2/view?usp=sharing

Coupon-mad

Reiterate the fact this was a double visit and you provided proof of where the driver went in between, that was NOT in walking distance in the minutes in question:

They also couldn't prove that the driver made a double entrance within the indicated time window. I had provided a receipt to indicate the driver shopped from somewhere else on the same day within the indicated time.

Remind POPLA they are an evidence-based service and you are the only one who has provided evidence that this was two return visits. MET have shown nothing to refute that, no evidence of searching their images and data for other captures of the VRN that day, at all. POPLA must surely already know that ANPR camera systems have the known flaw the BPA admitted to in an article, that they WILL ALWAYS take the first in last out images in a 24 hr period.

cesurman

Hi All,

Below is my draft comment to POPLA. I will need to submit it today in the evening.
Thanks in advance for any comments.

POPLA is an evidence-based service
It was a double visit, I provided proof of where the driver went in between. MET have shown nothing to refute that no evidence of searching their images and data for other captures of the VRN that day at all. In the past, POPLA accepted an appeal based on a double entrance while the operator couldn’t provide evidence of a single stay.
MET have something to hide. Beavis case is not relevant here, full contract needs to be provided to show boundaries of the land and conditions when the operator can issue charges and where or send warning etc. Still no proof of FULL compliance with BPA CoP.
MET agreed on my planning permission evidence. By the planning permission, in Brocklebank retail park car park built by LXB, MET don’t have the right to issue parking tickets to the first time offending genuine customers. As MET redacted details this was highly likely to be hidden from POPLA.

The_Deep

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP after the elction , it can cause the scammer extra costs and work and in some cases, cancellation.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, 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.

[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]

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

Fruitcake

Where possible, without exceeding the 2000 character limit, put the PPC's point first followed by your rebuttal.

Do this for each and every point.

If the PPC has failed to address any of your appeal points then you must tell the assessor your points must be allowed by default.

As an aside, did you send an SAR to the PPC? If so, and they didn't provide pics of the vehicle leaving after the first visit and returning later, complain to the ICO that two sets of images are missing, therefore the scammers have failed to provide all the personal data they hold about you.

cesurman

I hadn't sent a SAR, didn't know I could.

I've amended the draft as per your suggestion:

Re: The vehicle left the car park and returned later.
MET: The photographic evidence supplied in Section E of our evidence pack demonstrates that the vehicle was observed entering the car park at 13:47 and leaving at 17:48.
POPLA is an evidence-based service. I provided proof of where the driver went in between. MET have shown nothing to refute that no evidence of searching their images and data for other captures of the VRN that day at all. In the past, POPLA accepted an appeal based on a double entrance while the operator couldn’t provide evidence of a single stay.

Re:No evidence of landowner authority/ no authority to issue charge notices to first offenders.
MET: We have included a copy of our contract with the landowner in Section E of our evidence pack. We have redacted commercially sensitive details and highlighted relevant clauses for ease of reading. Our contract with the landowner grants us authority to form contracts with motorists and issue parking charge notices for contractual breach.
MET have something to hide. Beavis case is not relevant here, full contract needs to be provided to show boundaries of the land and conditions when the operator can issue charges and where or send warning etc. Still no proof of well-defined landowner authority nor FULL compliance with BPA CoP.
MET agreed on my planning permission evidence. By the planning permission, in Brocklebank retail park car park built by LXB, MET don’t have the right to issue parking tickets to the first time offending genuine customers. As MET redacted details this was highly likely to be hidden from POPLA.

cesurman

Please see the amended part in bold.

Re: The vehicle left the car park and returned later.
MET: The photographic evidence supplied in Section E of our evidence pack demonstrates that the vehicle was observed entering the car park at 13:47 and leaving at 17:48.
POPLA is an evidence-based service. I provided proof of where the driver went with the car in between. MET have shown nothing to refute that no evidence of searching their images and data for other captures of the VRN that day at all. In the past, POPLA accepted an appeal based on a double entrance while the operator couldn’t provide evidence of a single stay.
Re:No evidence of landowner authority/ no authority to issue charge notices to first offenders.
MET: We have included a copy of our contract with the landowner in Section E of our evidence pack. We have redacted commercially sensitive details and highlighted relevant clauses for ease of reading. Our contract with the landowner grants us authority to form contracts with motorists and issue parking charge notices for contractual breach.
MET have something to hide. Beavis case is not relevant here, full contract needs to be provided to show boundaries of the land and conditions when the operator can issue charges and where or send warning etc. Still no proof of well-defined landowner authority nor FULL compliance with BPA CoP.
Authority Agreement provided by MET only shows some text and Savills logo which you can easily find from web. There is no indication to suggest this is part of the contract provided rather looks like something they put together to defend against appeals. Their wording “McDonald’s” in their evidence pack also shows their evidence doesn’t reflect the truth.
MET agreed my planning permission evidence. By the PP, in Brocklebank retail park car park, MET don’t have the right to issue parking tickets to the first time offending genuine customers. As MET redacted details from the contract and authority statement looks to be made up this was highly likely to be hidden from POPLA.
Re: Failure to comply with the ICO Code of Practice.
MET: we refer the assessor to Section E of our evidence pack
As can be seen from the evidence provided by MET signage is not compliant with the ICO CoP. They are small and very high that can’t be seen easily.

Umkomaas

Too many characters at 2,186. You only have 2,000 to play with.