Fine received while changing tyre....

B789

I'm going to play devil's advocate here in the hope that it gets the OPs thinking into gear.

The operator has stated in point 28, that ‘the driver parked during the daytime; therefore all signs were perfectly visible.’ The time of the incident is not defined as daytime and is corroborated by the exit picture (18.11) which shows the car leaving at night (following a 49-minute period). The picture shows no day light so therefore the signs were not perfectly visible at this time would have been dusk into night-time. The operator has withheld these pictures at the outset in a deliberate attempt to subvert the appeal process. The daytime site photos show a lack of suitable lighting around the car park especially when parked at night.

Sunset in Maidstone on 23/03/2023 was at 18:15. Official twilight of 30 minutes means that it wasn't "night" until 18:45. You arrived at the car park at 17:22 so the argument you are using about it being "dark" doesn't hold up as the "contract" is formed when you arrive, not when you leave the car park. The "dark" ANPR photo doesn't mean anything. The contrast is adjusted to highlight the number plate.

Is this really a rabbit hole you want to waste words on?

The car was located at the bottom left of the car park, which is corroborated via the exit picture (18.11) which shows the car reversing out of the bay. It is difficult to locate signs on the left-hand side of the car park with signs blocked by shrubbery and there are no signs at the bottom left of the car park. Together with an unlit car park, it is difficult to identify that all signs were perfectly visible. From reviewing the pictures, the only signs that may appear visible are those located on the other side of the car park located on the building. This would only be legible if a driver parked on that side of the car park.

ANPR can only be used for what it says on the tin. It cannot be used to "corroborate" whether a car is "reversing" out of a bay or anything else. It can only be used to "log" number plates. Also, referring to "left-hand side" or "bottom-left" of the car park mean sweet FA unless you are referencing it to a static picture or from a reference point. You are just wasting words.

What does "...difficult to identify that all signs were perfectly visible" mean? If they were not "perfectly visible, were they at least "visible"? You need to read this out to yourself and analyse it from the perspective of someone who has no idea of the layout of the car park. Waffling on about "perfectly visible" or "...may appear visible" or "other side" or "the building" will not make sense to anyone unfamiliar with the location.

To conclude, under point 26, the Operator ‘note the Appellant’s comment that the text is too small’. The photos of the car parking sign further evidence this with the £100 charge in small light blue writing just below a thick blue block. This text is very small which is difficult to read at the best of times if this sign was locatable. This is not comparable to the ‘Beavis case’ sign in terms of clarity and ease of eligibility of the contract terms to be entered into (figure 1 in the appellant claim). There is still no evidence of the entrance sign detailing the parking charge required when entering into a contract. How can a driver understand the terms of the contract prior to entry of the car park.

Just read the first sentence of that paragraph... "To conclude, blah, blah, full stop. It doesn't tell the reader anything except that you have put some words together. Needs rewriting to at least infer something.

"...clarity and ease of eligibility..." Perhaps proofread first? Did you mean "legibility"?

Regarding the "Confirmation of Authority"... that is not a copy of the contract. Often, a PPC will produce its own "Confirmation of Authority" signed by one of its own people. Means nothing but you are dealing with POPLA here, so that also means nothing. It would probably only hold water if it went to court.

The appellant has included a photograph of the entrance site sign. This was taken at the site and has no reference to the google map picture. The information detailed on this sign is ineligible to a potential driver, with the text too small to read. The operator has failed to provide a corroborating photo of this sign to confirm whether they comply with this practice or not.

What does "This was taken at the site and has no reference to the google map picture." mean? Also, "...on this sign is ineligible to a potential driver...". What is something on a sign that is "ineligible" to a "potential" driver? And... "...failed to provide a corroborating photo of this sign to confirm whether they comply with this practice or not." means what???

You then go on to waffle on about "No information has been provided by the Operator to contest the evidence provided for the broken-down vehicle." You know about the supposed 2,000-word limit so why write War and Peace when you have just pointed out to the POPLA assessor that the Operator has not contested one of your points? That is all you have to do. Just highlight any points that the Operator has not contested that are in your appeal. You only have to have one point agreed by the assessor whilst the Operator has to have all of theirs win.

I could go on but I couldn't be bothered dedicating any more time to this. The OP needs to re-think what is needed in a POPLA rebuttal of the Operator's own rebuttal of the appellant's appeal.

B+ for effort but C- for content and grammar.

ivysaur

Thank you for all your comments - I acknowledge the points raised and will take them on board. It was a first draft, but clearly the content and grammar is not great and I will make it more concise and to the point.
With regards to the Confirmation of Authority - I appreciate the XXXXXX, but then later confirm the premises name. In essence the address is the same, but the store on this document is for the old store and not the new store. Both companies are different legal entities. I am challenging that point on this basis.
With regards to the numbering - this was in accordance with my appeal, but will just complete it in order as per the advice. 

B789

I see you lost your POPLA appeal. Never mind, it would appear that you had one of the "thicker" assessors, probably the tea boy.

The POPLA decision has no bearing on anything and you will just have to go through the motions of waiting for Plan D to come into effect. Your case has an incredibly good chance of being thrown out by a judge based on Jopson v Homeguard alone, never mind the signage. The tea boy's opinion that because there were signs and cars parked, even though the business that owned the land has changed means that there must be a contract in place just goes to show that he should stick to making tea.

Weather the storm of useless debt collector letters and wait to see if/when they issue an LoC or a claim form.

ivysaur

Hi all… I appreciate it has been a while and having received a number of threatening, a LBA response as delivered in May 24. I followed up with the recommended questions and received the usual responses as expected. 

However nothing has been sent since the last correspondence. Being conscious that I should be expecting a court claim, is there any risk that this could be lost in the post? Or are Claims sent by recorded delivery? Just want to make sure I don’t miss the boat in rigorously defending the claim.

Umkomaas

Sent in the general post, not 'Signed For' (no longer termed 'Recorded Delivery'). Impossible to tell if anything has been lost in the post, short of poking the hornets' nest and asking CEL - not recommended!

They have 6 years to pursue through the County Court.  What you must not do - should you change address at any time during that 6 year span - is to leave them with your old address. You must update it with them.

ivysaur

Thanks for the quick response. I will follow the advice and sit tight. If I receive anything which highlights any potential missing claim form etc, I will come back for advice.