One parking solution PCN

D_P_Dance

Excellent advice, let us see if we can find this company new premises in Carey Street.

Scrapit

Coupon-mad said:

As you are about to submit an OPS POPLA appeal, please be the first person to upload THIS JUDGMENT:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6136572/one-parking-solution-warned-by-a-judge-that-they-may-face-an-application-for-a-civil-restraint-order/p1

POPLA need to see it.  Refer to it as a separate point in your POPLA appeal.
If you have already submitted the appeal, you will be allowed to add more after the lockdown, so says the POPLA website at the moment.  So add it then!

Every OPS case (POPLA or court) needs to show POPLA/Judges that judgment in full, the whole 69 paragraphs, and refer to it in terms of the 'wholly unacceptable' signage, etc. with 600 words in the smallest font.  POPLA will love reading that and you can be the first person to show it to them.

OPS will be spitting feathers.  

I will be submitting today as its the 28th day. Although from reading i see that may not be the case... Any hoo, i have changed my appeal to the following points:

1.       The entrance signs are inadequately positioned and lit and signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces.

 

2.       Recent change of operators and therefore change of terms not communicated to car park users clearly in accordance with BPA Code of Practice.

 

3.       The vehicle is shown on a public street in the Notice to Keeper.

 

4.       No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.

 

5.       Vehicle Images contained in the PCN – Non-compliant to the BPA Code of Practice.

 

6. No Evidence of Advertising Consent for Signage.
6 is just fluff and i understand will fail. 5 is a gamble, there is a date stamp, its just illegible and there fore not worth having. 4 is unlikely to be of use, 3 is factually correct. 2 and 1 are probably whats gonna win if anything is.
What would the recent ruling against OPS feature as? I see you put in your post to include it separately. But apart from the slightly bullying tactics and the confusion about the differences in ANPR and CCTV the key point to me appears to be insufficient signage (a very brief summary by myself) and therefore should it not be added to my point 1?

Scrapit

Appeal has been submitted.

Fruitcake

What would the recent ruling against OPS feature as?

Make point 4 point 1, include the judgement, and point out that the scammers appear to have lied to the court, had no landowner contract, and made a vexatious claim. This puts into doubt the whole of this PCN.

Pick out the juiciest parts of the judgement and quote them to show PoPLA what a total bunch of thieving scammers OPS are.

Scrapit

Fruitcake said:

What would the recent ruling against OPS feature as?

Make point 4 point 1, include the judgement, and point out that the scammers appear to have lied to the court, had no landowner contract, and made a vexatious claim. This puts into doubt the whole of this PCN.

Pick out the juiciest parts of the judgement and quote them to show PoPLA what a total bunch of thieving scammers OPS are.

But that is only in that case, the relevant aspects of that was the judges opinion of the signage. The very bizarre landowner consent is of course valid, but I would be surprised if they have been that shoddy with this landowner, who have bought the land only to operate a car park for profit. I was surprised, as was the judge, that they wanted to present that in court. That said the entire 69 paragraphs are included but I focused on the similarities between the sign at that car park and the one where my vehicle was.

DoaM

Umkomaas said:

I think you're doing a good job in winning over volunteers here.

I'm responding to this post without reading the next 3 pages of posts ... if you check the OP's posting history you'll find that this is the norm.

Coupon-mad

The Lewes case should be used in all OPS POPLA appeals...did you not put it in? 
Their signs are all the same.

And another reason to include it is, OPS will not want POPLA to read it and might give up.  That's why.

Scrapit

DoaM said:

Umkomaas said:

I think you're doing a good job in winning over volunteers here.

I'm responding to this post without reading the next 3 pages of posts ... if you check the OP's posting history you'll find that this is the norm.

Gosh, I'm famous!

Scrapit

Coupon-mad said:

The Lewes case should be used in all OPS POPLA appeals...did you not put it in? 
Their signs are all the same.

And another reason to include it is, OPS will not want POPLA to read it and might give up.  That's why.

The signs are not the same. But I did include it.

Coupon-mad

Good!  That might cause OPS to give up, to stop POPLA reading the judgment.

Are the signs not white 45x45m square standard OPS drivel there then?  Like this:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/it7518rshgmnppy/IMG_8716 (1) Beavis sign comparison.PNG?dl=0