Better to POPLA or engage?

Coupon-mad

LOL, that horrific ''intro'' is just bad grammar and waffle and we are fed up that people keep copying that rubbishy wording.  You need no intro to a POPLA appeal.  It is what it is and you don't have to tell POPLA when the tedious letters were dated or when the predictable rejection letter arrived!

Have you added the usual 'no landowner authority' as advised (template from the NEWBIES thread) and embedded your signage photo as a picture in the document rather than a link that POPLA will not follow?

This (below) is not necessary.  Grace periods are not meant to appear on any signs, why would they tell you that?  It would make people stay longer:

As I have already mentioned, there is no indication on any signage whether there is a grace period available for a driver to make their decision on whether to remain in the carpark. 

And you haven't said in this appeal how long the car was there for, so the Grace Periods point seems redundant unless you are trying to point out that the car was only there for mere minutes, and that the driver didn't enter into a parking contract and left?

Chrisw_3

Coupon-mad said:

LOL, that horrific ''intro'' is just bad grammar and waffle and we are fed up that people keep copying that rubbishy wording.  You need no intro to a POPLA appeal.  It is what it is and you don't have to tell POPLA when the tedious letters were dated or when the predictable rejection letter arrived!

Have you added the usual 'no landowner authority' as advised (template from the NEWBIES thread) and embedded your signage photo as a picture in the document rather than a link that POPLA will not follow?

This (below) is not necessary.  Grace periods are not meant to appear on any signs, why would they tell you that?  It would make people stay longer:

As I have already mentioned, there is no indication on any signage whether there is a grace period available for a driver to make their decision on whether to remain in the carpark. 

And you haven't said in this appeal how long the car was there for, so the Grace Periods point seems redundant unless you are trying to point out that the car was only there for mere minutes, and that the driver didn't enter into a parking contract and left?

That was my mistake, I just thought it was a standard intro that everyone used. Will remove it! I hope you can see that I didn't just copy and paste and made a decent job of the argument - thank you for your considered reply.

I am adding the landowner bit, and the picture is in the pdf, I just copied the link for efficiency when posting here. 

My point, as much as the signage is unclear and so on (which I do regard as being legitimate), is that there is no entry or exit signs of the car park. So, a person could wait there, and not realise they're in the boundary - or, that they could "enter", wait for a few minutes until it came to their attention that they weren't allowed to be there, and then move on - enough time, undoubtedly, for the claim to be made that they had knowingly parked.

Thanks again, I really appreciate it.

Fruitcake

In your inadequate signage point, you state that there is no entrance sign.
You then include another point entitled, BPA CoP failures and quote the part of the CoP that refers to Entrance signs. Include any other CoP failures you can find as well if there are any.

Chrisw_3

Dear all,

This has moved forward finally after postponement, and some evidence has been submitted by the 'other side'. I can of course make comment.

I am unsure whether to copy the reply here (for obvious reasons!) or just to surmise the slant of their argument. It's clearly a well rehearsed pack.

There is quite a bit in their reply that I don't agree with, but most notably: the signs that they content are on the carpark are absolutely not. 

https://m.imgur.com/a/7KmlmVf

The above is the sign that is there. They have submitted pictures of the same signage but without the entire bottom small print. I think that is out of order: the confusing small print words about whether a driver WILL or MAY get charged are conveniently left out of the pictures they have submitted. No reasonable human could read that small print without getting close!

Redx

Make a concise rebuttal , using less than 2000 characters , so no waffle , showing their errors and where they haven't disputed your points , do not forget , short , concise !!

Post it below if you want critique

Chrisw_3

https://ibb.co/cFZXG9R

The sign they reckon is there...(it's not).

Chrisw_3

"We enclose copies of the signage at this site." This is objectively not true - the signage that is actually at the site is substantively and meaningfully different to the pictures you provide. There is significant small print on the signs that are in place, and they do not make the full extent of the conditions clear, as I outlined in my original evidence. This contravenes A8.4 and A8.8 of the BPA regulations.

"Our signs follow a tried and tested method to grab the

attention of all motorists entering the location. Our signs outline the terms and conditions, so a motorist is able to decide whether they wish to stay or remain and abide by the terms". The signs that are actually in place have the terms and conditions in miniscule writing, and are inconsistent in wording and meaning. The sign I provided in my evidence is the actual sign in place, clearly in no way consistent with A8.3 and A8.8 of the BPA regulations - neither conspicuous nor legible. 

"The Driver would have driven past an entrance sign stating: ‘Parking Conditions Apply. See notices within service area for further details. Private Land’." This is not true: there are several ways that a driver could enter the carpark - there is no well-signed 'entrance'. This contravenes A8.2 - there are numerous 'ways in', and no signage to this effect.

"We would advise that, as can be seen below from Google maps, the entire car park is surrounded by double yellow

lines, therefore the parking area has been outlined". The presence of double yellow lines on a public road is not sufficient to denote the boundaries of a private car park. This is clearly not adequate and is in no way consistent with the code for the use of double yellow lines. No signage exists to indicate to a drive that the double yellow lines are a carpark boundary. This contravenes several BPA regulations. 

In summary: signage not compliant with BPA, not adequately readable from inside a vehicle, inconsistent wording and unclear terms, miniscule text, missing entrance signs, no notice of carpark boundary and more. The evidence supplied by the operator is clearly not up-to-date and does not reflect the true situation in the carpark as at the time the PCN.

Chrisw_3

Would appreciate any thoughts - consider the above a 'first draft' if it is in no way good enough! 

Fruitcake

Chrisw_3 said:

https://ibb.co/cFZXG9R

The sign they reckon is there...(it's not).

That is a stock image from a computer folder, and refers to unlawful credit card charges that were outlawed several years ago. It is not a photo of a sign on the site.

If there is no entrance sign, or there isn't a sign at every entrance, say the scammers have provided no proof of this.

Any points they have failed to address, you say so, and therefore that point must be allowed.

If the scammers have not provided a map of the site, or photos of the car actually parked, then say so. A google map does not define site boundaries or landowners.

Castle

Fruitcake said:

Chrisw_3 said:

https://ibb.co/cFZXG9R

The sign they reckon is there...(it's not).

That is a stock image from a computer folder, and refers to unlawful credit card charges that were outlawed several years ago. It is not a photo of a sign on the site.

Even worse is the fact that the Company's registered name, Defence Systems Ltd, is missing from the "sign"; so no legal entity has been identified,
(This is an offence under the 2015 Company Trading disclosures regulations and each Director is potentially liable for a fine of up to £1,000).