Stopping not parking

Paul_Parker

Half_way said:

Who's car park was this/where was this?

One Stop Shopping Centre, Perry Barr, Birmingham.
https://onestop-shopping.co.uk/

Coupon-mad

Same as all the other threads about that place, then! 

Paul_Parker

Coupon-mad said:

Same as all the other threads about that place, then! 

Not really, since, AFAICT, none of them involve POPLA declaring "he will not be granted a grace period in this instance."

Paul_Parker

I have today sent the following, via POPLA's complaint form:

FOA your lead adjudicator

I wish to raise a complaint with regard to case [case number redacted]

Your adjudicator declares "he will not be granted a grace period in this instance". It is not within your adjudicator's gift to decide that the BPA code of practice, which as you are aware mandates grace periods, does not apply.

Your adjudicator acknowledges my observation (backed up by timestamps on the photographs provided by ParkWatch) that the entire incident, during which the vehicle was never parked, lasted less than a minute; well within any grace period.

Furthermore, your adjudicator overlooks ParkWatch's own statement "We have not alleged that the vehicle was parked". Your adjudicator relies on POFA, which, as you again will be aware relates to "parking" not "stopping", which are different in law. No Parking charge can apply if a vehicle is not parked. As such, your adjudicator had no choice but to decide that as keeper I have no liability. 

Umkomaas

I've just been reading back over this. 

I also note that the appellant has raised ‘Lord Dennings Red Hand Rule’ and ‘Beavis vs Parking Eye’. In this case, I will only be referring to ‘Beavis vs Parking Eye as ‘Lord Dennings Red Hand Rule’ does not apply in POPLA and is not a case we would comment on.

What on earth does that mean?  The Assessor doesn't understand it, so deems it not applicable 'in POPLA' - again whatever 'in POPLA' means.  Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule is not cited for POPLA to comment on, rather it is there for them to follow and consider its applicability and application in relation to the signage on site!

This is just so pathetic!

Ralph-y

again .... I hope the OP will post on these comments when the CoP consultation  starts ...

POPLA my Jim Royal .........

Ralph

Paul_Parker

Ralph-y said:

 CoP consultation

What's that?

Paul_Parker

Umkomaas said:

This is just so pathetic!

Indeed. But there seems to be little (else) that can be done about it.

Ralph-y

supposedly this month the new draft CoP for private parking ( the act was sorted over 18 months a go) is put out for public comments.......  Members of the public will be asked to pass on their comments .... it will help the cause .. and you never know stop people like your good self from being ensnared ...

Ralph

Coupon-mad

I also note that the appellant has raised ‘Lord Dennings Red Hand Rule’ and ‘Beavis vs Parking Eye’. In this case, I will only be referring to ‘Beavis vs Parking Eye as ‘Lord Dennings Red Hand Rule’ does not apply in POPLA and is not a case we would comment on.

That is mental.  It's wrong and stupid.   You can tell the assessor has no clue and/or has been badly trained.

You need to tell John Gallagher that there is more applicable case law than Beavis and their assessors can't just say Beavis is the only binding case law relating to parking!  So this assessor has said:

''Court of Appeal case law established for over a hundred years doesn't apply in POPLA!!''

!!!!!!?