HELP POPLA Appeal

WontPayAPenny

Hi Guys,

I am a teenager who, since beginning driving, has been fighting these bullies that we call parking companies. Anywho, I have always been a follower of the NEWBIES thread, and have used their template every time for Plan B (appeal to the PPC) appeals, mainly for Britannia Parking. Sprinkle in a bit of NtK non compliance in regards to PoFA (WITHOUT DRIVER ADMISSION ) and !!!!!!! Just like magic, a “we’ll let you off just this once” type of letter is sent every time.

However, recently, I had received a “No valid Pay and Display ticket purchased” NtK for Euro Car Parks (Sainsbury’s). Same procedure, complain to landowner if possible (they almost never answer), then appeal without driver admission and state that there will be no admissions as to who was, mention the non compliant NtK. Done, right? Boom, my first rejected appeal. POPLA code issued.

Now, like I said, I have read the NEWBIES thread which outlines some points I could mention. However, as I feel that this is to be the last step before LBCs, CCJs blah blah blah, I want to make sure that my appeal will be just right. I’m heading to uni soon and will hence not have a lot of time or money for this faff. Plus, keeping up with postal correspondance will be difficult (in regards to if a LBC/ CCJ is ever issued)

Now here are my points:

-Non compliant NtK in regards to PoFA 2012 Para 9 Sub-Para (2) (e). They havent STATED that they dont know who the driver or their current address of service. They’ve complied with (i) and (ii) but not the first bit of (e) (i.e. worked off the presumption that the keeper is the driver.
- This is in BPA code of practice and so not followed PoFA within it
-Also in the BPA CoP, is wording about signage. I would’ve thought they’ve upped their game to make this foolproof but in their rejection letter, a picture of the signage was sent. Not only in their close up picture of the sign is the writing still illegible, but the small print at the bottom (ridiculously illegible) that still forms as part of the contract, is not the same colour as the background that the larger writing is behind. In BPA CoP, it says that the text should be behind a background, each of which should be a SINGLE solid colour. The large print is behind darker, glossy yellow, the small print behind a brighter, non glossy yellow (clearly apparent in the pic they provided me)

Will this be all I need if I go ham on these points? As surely they can’t pursue me any further anyways as a keeper if the NtK is invalid/incorrectly issued and they cannot prove that I was the driver (not been admitted either).

Many thanks Forumites!

Umkomaas

However, as I feel that this is to be the last step before LBCs, CCJs blah blah blah

ECP don't do court for single tickets.  

1. Non compliant NtK in regards to PoFA 2012 Para 9 Sub-Para (2) (e). They havent STATED that they dont know who the driver or their current address of service. They’ve complied with (i) and (ii) but not the first bit of (e) (i.e. worked off the presumption that the keeper is the driver.
2.  This is in BPA code of practice and so not followed PoFA within it
3. Also in the BPA CoP, is wording about signage. I would’ve thought they’ve upped their game to make this foolproof but in their rejection letter, a picture of the signage was sent. Not only in their close up picture of the sign is the writing still illegible, but the small print at the bottom (ridiculously illegible) that still forms as part of the contract, is not the same colour as the background that the larger writing is behind. In BPA CoP, it says that the text should be behind a background, each of which should be a SINGLE solid colour. The large print is behind darker, glossy yellow, the small print behind a brighter, non glossy yellow (clearly apparent in the pic they provided me)

1. Compliant enough for POPLA not to find in your favour on that one. 

2. Maybe so, but POPLA still won't side with you on it. 

3. Your strongest POPLA appeal point, but they won't get drawn into colours and glossy or brighter yellows. However, if you read the POPLA Decisions Announcement sticky, starting from the last post and work backwards, you will see a number of ECP cases where the level of charge (£100) is insufficiently prominent to bring to the attention of the driver. This could be a winner for you. 

In addition, as often posted by forum stalwart @Fruitcake, these are the standard key points to include in any POPLA appeal:

1) Non-PoFA compliant NTK/NTH (if appropriate)
2) Not the driver/not the person who may be liable for the charge
3) Not the landowner
4) No standing to issue charges in their own name
5) Inadequate signage
6) BPA CoP failures (if appropriate)

Coupon-mad

ECP only (usually)  do court for multi-PCNs.  Hence the two midwife cases that we currently have on the forum.  Almost certainly no worries with a single PCN.

Your prep looks good but also add the appeal point re 'no landowner authority' as per the 3rd post of the NEWBIES thread.

WontPayAPenny

Apologies for the late reply, I have put this off for as long as reasonably possible as I do not want to give these pr1cks the time of day, but I guess I have to get round to it at some point.

ECP don't do court for single tickets.  

Thank you for this. Definitely a weight off my shoulders by you mentioning this.

1. Compliant enough for POPLA not to find in your favour on that one. 

Apologies for me questioning your point, its only because my true knowledge of contract law is amateur to say the least. Compliant enough? Surely they cannot pursue me as the keeper of the vehicle if its not PoFA compliant (i.e. the case is either that it IS or IS NOT compliant; if the latter is true, how could POPLA possibly rule in favour of the parking company?). Yes it’s a kangaroo court, but the bar for a (so-called) ‘ independent appeal service’ is surely adhering to contract law as a bare minimum?

3. Your strongest POPLA appeal point, but they won't get drawn into colours and glossy or brighter yellows. However, if you read the POPLA Decisions Announcement sticky, starting from the last post and work backwards, you will see a number of ECP cases where the level of charge (£100) is insufficiently prominent to bring to the attention of the driver. This could be a winner for you. 

Despite not wanting to give them the time of day, I did go out of my way to go photograph their signage at the car park in question. Although I actually could not find the the sign that they provided me in their email sent to me, I was able to find an example of signs provided for disabled and child bays, which too, were at heights where even a person with 20/20 vision genuinely could not read. I was right under the sign in the picture, and would definitely not have seen it if i was in a car.

Is this an applicable point too? I have also attached below a picture of the lack of sufficient ‘entrance signage’. As a driver who comes off of the roundabout directly into the car park and turns left to continue into the car park, it is almost certainly missed by every driver that (god forbid) enters this cursed car park. After getting right up underneath the sign, it is still barely legible (definitely illegible to a passing driver who is entering OR exiting) and contains no specific or relevant details, other than to refer to a sign that cannot be found easily. Certainly would not be brought to the driver’s attention. Let me be clear that the sign shown for a driver entering the car park would be on his right side, and then behind him (as you must turn left here).


If the signage is as such, can you not be under the reasonable assumption that many drivers are unaware that they are entering a contract by entering the car park  

In regards to your mention of fruitcakes list for a POPLA appeal, If you reckon POPLA won’t side with me on these BoP code of practice violations, do you not think it is still worth mentioning these violations as extra ammo?

Either way, many thanks Umkomaas and Coupon-mad for your help, I will post a draft here tomorrow morning for anyone to scrutinise before sending off

Grizebeck

Coupon-mad said:

ECP only do court for multi-PCNs.  Hence the two midwife cases that we currently have on the forum.  No worries with a single PCN.

Your prep looks good but also add the appeal point re 'no landowner authority' as per the 3rd post of the NEWBIES thread.

Don't want to contradict you but that's longer true for ECP (via QDR) I am afraid . Although it will only apply for a smattering of cases.
Seen quite a few whilst being a lady of leisure.....

Umkomaas

but in their rejection letter, a picture of the signage was sent

Can we see that sign please. The one you've shown above has the £70 charge quite prominently showing, so that's unlikely to help. If they've sent you a stock copy with the charge buried in the text, you'd use that one for POPLA. 

fisherjim

"I actually could not find the the sign that they provided me in their email sent to me"

Probably because it is not a photo from that site but from their office master copies, needs highlighting to POPLA.

You photos will most probably also be rejected by POPLA as they are not date stamped.

WontPayAPenny

Can we see that sign please. The one you've shown above has the £70 charge quite prominently showing, so that's unlikely to help. If they've sent you a stock copy with the charge buried in the text, you'd use that one for POPLA. 

You photos will most probably also be rejected by POPLA as they are not date stamped.

Would this photo sent by ECP in their rejection letter be disregarded by POPLA then? Theirs isn’t stamped!

Umkomaas, your point has helped. Have a look at this.

 *sigh* I dont even know how to describe how high this sign is, and it’s STILL zoomed in.

Umkomaas

If that sign is displayed at the car park, looks like ECP have recently installed it (they're a relatively new contractor to Sainsburys, therefore the installation of updated signage?). 

This is an example of the type of sign where POPLA was finding in favour of motorists. Anything like it at 'your' car park?  If so, snap, snap.

fisherjim

"Would this photo sent by ECP in their rejection letter be disregarded by POPLA then? Theirs isn’t stamped!"

It's one of the points you must make when dissecting their submissions.

WontPayAPenny

It's one of the points you must make when dissecting their submissions.

Ok cool. Something along the lines of “As the photograph provided by ECP of the sign that they contend is at the site, which I have been unable to discover, is not only inconspicuous in its presence, and more importantly, the charge/consequence of not abiding by the alleged contract that the motorist would enter by entering the car park through a font size of the charge which is unreasonably small for an average motorist to be able to comprehend (along with the full terms and conditions which certainly cannot be ascertained without the assistance of technology, such as a camera (still illegible with the zoomed in picture provided by ECP)), but is also ambiguous in the length of time that the sign has been present; the picture has not been date stamped and hence it can be deuced that the proposed sign may not have been present at the time of the alleged contravention”

I’m semi working along the lines of proof beyond reasonable doubt which I am unsure that ECP have to prove? I.e Is it up to ECP that they have to prove that beyond reasonable doubt that the motorist would be liable to pay, as they have taken all reasonable measures possible to ensure that their end is held up?

This is an example of the type of sign where POPLA was finding in favour of motorists. Anything like it at 'your' car park?  If so, snap, snap.

Unfortunately, as mentioned before, I am a uni student who has just moved in last week. As this is the case, it is near impossible for me to come back home to snap pics within the timeframe that I have to submit this appeal. Thanks for the suggestion, but I suppose I have to work with what I’ve got.

Also, what do I do if POPLA rejects?

I JUST WANT TO ENJOY MY FIRST WEEK OF UNI !!!!!!