Parked causing obstruction

illgetwiser

Le_Kirk wrote: »

If you have received a POPLA code you compete a POPLA appeal using ALL the appeal points you will find in post # 3 of the NEWBIE sticky and adding your own points about loading etc.

Will the NTK point stand as I'm not the registered keeper and they haven't corresponded with the keeper but I who I've already admitted was the driver (I think) in my original appeal?

Coupon-mad

If you admitted to driving (big mistake) you can't criticise the NTK wording or timeline.

illgetwiser

Coupon-mad wrote: »

If you admitted to driving (big mistake) you can't criticise the NTK wording or timeline.

So at Popla stage, my only grounds of appeal would be that I was not causing an obstruction nor was I parked as I was unloading and there aren't any allocated loading bays.

I also noticed the signage wasn't actually clear according to the signage post. The charge isn't bold and is in a small font. Would this be enough to win this appeal?

Just to be clear if I did admit I was the driver and it is a hire car, but only a windscreen pcn was issued and I hooked the PPC before they contacted the hiring company aren't they the keepers of the vehicle? I do not own the vehicle and I'm not aware of them notifying the hiring company so doesn't that mean they wouldn't have delivered an NTK?

Coupon-mad

So at Popla stage, my only grounds of appeal would be that I was not causing an obstruction nor was I parked as I was unloading and there aren't any allocated loading bays.

No, your grounds of appeal will be those in post #3 of the NEWBIES thread.

illgetwiser

Hi guys, thank you all for your time and help, I've drafted a Popla appeal and would like to see if this is correct with the extra points I have added. I have only included points 1-3 in detail as those are specific to my case and the other points have been copied word for word from the relevant threads. Thanks again for the help.

Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

I am the registered keeper of vehicle XXXXXX and am appealing a parking charge from P4Parking.

1. Doesn’t constitute as an obstruction according to the Road Traffic Act
2. Vehicle was being loaded and was not parked.
3. No loading bays provided by landowner or Parking Company
4. A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served - no Keeper Liability can apply.
5. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself
6. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
7. This charge is unconscionable and offends against the penalty rule which was 'plainly engaged' in the case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis
8. This charge is incompatible with the rights under the lease - as decided by the Appeal case of 'JOPSON V HOME GUARD SERVICES' case number: B9GF0A9E on 29th June 2016, which also held that the Beavis case does not apply to this sort of car park.


1. Doesn’t constitute as an obstruction according to the Road Traffic Act
According to the Road Traffic Act, there is only one offence in regards to obstructive parking.
An obstruction occurs when you are prevented from entering your parking space on your property (for example, accessing the drive on your front garden, over a dropped kerb). There is no equivalent offence if you are prevented from leaving the space.
As no residents were being prevented from entering their space and were aware the vehicle was being loaded this would not be classed as an obstruction.

2. Vehicle was being loaded and was not parked.
The vehicle was not parked but actively being loaded for a short amount of time.

3. No loading bays provided by landowner or Parking Company
The landowner and parking company has failed to provide relevant bays for loading and unloading.

nosferatu1001

Why have you included 4-8 when you say they dont apply?

Why have you excluded Jopson v Homeguard, when this was an appeals court case which showed that loading and unloading are not parking?
Etc

Your POPLA appela is about, at a rough guess, 1/10th the length of the appeals you cribbed from.

MistyZ

You need to embed photos of signage in the appeal and critique the hell out of them with reference to the standards covered in the generic signage section linked to on the Newbies' thread.

So far it seems that you write very clearly. I think POPLA appeals need to be as 'accessible' as possible for some of their assessors to understand them, so that's good!

And yes, need to go to town on Jopson v Homeguard too. Do not hold back, bung everything in! There's no point trying to second guess which of the points is most likely to win, other than putting the apparently strongest points first.

POPLA is most certainly worth doing. But some of the decisions beggar belief so make sure yours stands out in terms of rigour, comprehensiveness and clarity.

illgetwiser

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

Why have you included 4-8 when you say they dont apply?

Why have you excluded Jopson v Homeguard, when this was an appeals court case which showed that loading and unloading are not parking?
Etc

Your POPLA appela is about, at a rough guess, 1/10th the length of the appeals you cribbed from.

I have included points 4-8 as stated in the Newbies thread post 3, I think they do apply.

I believe an NTK hasn't been served as this was a hire car and I believe I hooked the PPC before they were able to contact the hire company by appealing. As this was a windscreen ticket and they are in direct correspondence with me even if I personally receive an NTK at my address, I am not the registered keeper. So an NTK hasn't been served.

Jopson v Homeguard is point 8.

The total length of my appeal is 9 pages, I just didn't want to post the whole thing since it was directly copied from post 3 of the Newbies thread.

illgetwiser

MistyZ wrote: »

You need to embed photos of signage in the appeal and critique the hell out of them with reference to the standards covered in the generic signage section linked to on the Newbies' thread.

So far it seems that you write very clearly. I think POPLA appeals need to be as 'accessible' as possible for some of their assessors to understand them, so that's good!

And yes, need to go to town on Jopson v Homeguard too. Do not hold back, bung everything in! There's no point trying to second guess which of the points is most likely to win, other than putting the apparently strongest points first.

POPLA is most certainly worth doing. But some of the decisions beggar belief so make sure yours stands out in terms of rigour, comprehensiveness and clarity.

Yeah in total my appeal is 9 pages. On the Newbies thread it says to use the Jopson v Homeguard (point 8) with (point 7) "This charge is unconscionable and offends against the penalty rule which was 'plainly engaged' in the case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis" so I have done so.

I've taken photos of the signage which I will upload with my appeal. The words are too small to read and the charge for violating the terms is also too small and doesn't stand out from the other text.

KeithP

illgetwiser wrote: »

I've taken photos of the signage which I will upload with my appeal.

As Misty said...

You need to embed photos of signage in the appeal...

... not upload with your appeal.