Unsuccessful POPLA & Background to POPLA

ohmy6od2

A bit of background on my initial POPLA appeal.

We were issued an invoice by Parking Eye for allegedly being in a staff only area. We had delivered here 48hrs prior with no issues and no invoice. 

We appealed on the basis that this ’staff area’ is the only place you can deliver to the goods entrances to any premises on the retail park. We supplied delivery notes and copies of job requests to prove we had good reason for being there.

It was rejected and had to go through POPLA. 

We supplied all of the initial evidence as per the process. Parking Eye then supplied theirs. As part of their evidence they supplied an aerial image with an outline of this ’staff area’. It basically covered the entirety of the rear area to every premises on the retail park, thus meaning it was not possible to deliver without getting an invoice. I put this to POPLA and asked how on earth we could deliver or anyone for that matter who was delivering. They also supplied a photo of the entrance to the ’staff area’ with their sign in the background, but the retail parks signage (which says its service vehicles and staff parking only) had been edited out of the photo. I supplied POPLA with evidence of this and they dismissed it without any explanation other than I failed to prove this. 

POPLA literally failed to take on board anything I said. I’m still none the wiser now how anyone can deliver here without being invoiced based on this ruling, even though we did 48hrs before. 

What’s the best approach now? I wouldn’t normally bother fighting so much but this has really p***ed me off and I don’t want to pay them anything.

Link to POPLA response: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79618375/#Comment_79618375

Le_Kirk

A loss at POPLA is not binding on the motorist and, as you have supplied good evidence to POPLA, this is probably an easy win at court, should the PPC decide to chance their arm (or their Eye).

patient_dream

Sad to say that POPLA are  a disgrace and now are proving they are not independent as they favour compnies like Parking Eye

As you probably know, the new code of practice which was by the way approved by Rishi Sunak 3 years ago in the "house", is now on hold because the likes of PE objected to it.  Along side the new code is a government promise for a fully independent appeals service which would kick POPLA into the long grass where they belong

Two points I would mention ...
1: PE provided aerial picturess ?   I know we have electric cars but as yet we don't have flying cars so how could they expect a motorist to see this.
Daft Parking Eye and daft POPLA who live on planet WONGA

2:  You say in the pictures they provided it seems like they have been edited out.   You would need to prove this and if this is the case, faking pictures is a serious offence and that is a matter for the DVLA to consider

PE do go to court, it's a DIY job...  but before that they use a debt collector and their favourite at the moment is DCBL. If you receive anything from DCBL, you ignore it. DCBL will add a fake amount which goes against the ruling of the Supreme Court ruling .... Parking Eye v Barry Beavis

Can't blame Parking Eye for doing this, better that DCBL wastes their money than PE

All you can do now is wait, ignore time wasting debt recovery letters

If it does go to court, could it be possible that the judge has a flying car ?

ohmy6od2

Thank you for the replies. This is really helpful.

This is the entrance to the service yard, and the photo PE provided had magically removed the 'Service vehicles and employee parking only' sign. It wasn't even a good photoshop they provided.

Umkomaas

Can we see the PE version of the entrance?  Is it date and time stamped?  Is your photo similarly stamped, you can extract the metadata relating to it - check out the internet for the process. Date and time stamps will be important if this goes to a court hearing. 

Coupon-mad

Yes please, we need to see the allegedly photoshopped pic.

I can help report this to the BPA & DVLA (and other interested parties in Government) if this is as you describe.

Coupon-mad

Please could you cut and paste that into a new thread, and delete the above as it is in the wrong place?

ohmy6od2

Coupon-mad said:

Yes please, we need to see the allegedly photoshopped pic.

I can help report this to the BPA & DVLA (and other interested parties in Government) if this is as you describe.

When POPLA contacted me to say they had the evidence from PE, I didn't realise it stayed on their portal and to be honest, I was convinced they'd overturn it, so I didn't keep a copy. 

I have contacted POPLA to ask for it, and they've replied saying as the case is closed I need to do a SAR which could take 30 days to process. As soon as I have it, I will post it.

Thank you - and everyone for their help. It really is appreciated.

Coupon-mad

Do a SAR to POPLA.

timpster

ohmy6od2 said:

When POPLA contacted me to say they had the evidence from PE, I didn't realise it stayed on their portal and to be honest, I was convinced they'd overturn it, so I didn't keep a copy. 

I have contacted POPLA to ask for it, and they've replied saying as the case is closed I need to do a SAR which could take 30 days to process. As soon as I have it, I will post it.

Thank you - and everyone for their help. It really is appreciated.

Just as a thought, if they have used google earth to provide the aerial shot then they could also have used Google Street View to provide the photos of the entrance signs. Sometimes google automatically blur out prominent writing as part of Google’s privacy protocol but leave other less prominent writing legible as it must not trigger the automatic algorithm to blur. 

Just go on google street view and see if the sign blurred out is visible and matches your recollection of how the altered photo looked.

Even if it is taken from Google Street View It doesn’t excuse their behaviour or weaken your case but it highlights their incompetence and might explain what has happened.