Popla appeal PCN premier park BB not displayed

confusedannie

I copied and pasted points 2. 3. and 4 onto my word doc and included it here but I can’t post links and it said Body’s 4416 too long, so I deleted them so I could send you what I’ve wrote. I’m actually starting to get a bit muddled but I really want to try because even if there’s a slim chance the appeal is approved, it may help others.

Thank you to all here, your absolute stars

My POPLA  APPEAL…. 

Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

Subject: Parking charge reference number: XXXXXXXXXX, Vehicle Registration: XXXXXXX,

I am the registered keeper of vehicle XXXXXXX and am appealing a parking charge from Premier Park on the following points:

 

I write to lodge my formal appeal in respect of the above-detailed Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) issued by Premier Park in respect of an alleged breach of Parking Terms and Conditions at….. ( place and date)……

The reason Premier Park issued the PNC to the vehicle is:- Parking in a disabled bay without clearly displaying a valid disabled badge.

I confirm that on that date, I was the vehicle’s keeper for the purpose of the corresponding definition in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”).

I set out below why I am not liable for this parking charge:

1. Breach of Equality Act 2010 - Failure to make reasonable adjustments before and after they were made aware an occupant of the vehicle had protected characteristics.

2. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.
3. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge.
4. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.

 

5. Failure to comply with the data protection …..(NOT SURE WHAT THIS COMES UNDER)…..

The details on above points are as listed below:-

 

1.    The parking terms and conditions have not been breached.

 

The disabled occupant of the car suffers sever panic attack and has severe mobility issues needing assistance from another person.

The valid disabled badge was clearly displayed.

 The occupant of the car was/is disabled and holds a valid disabled badge. 

Premier park was informed of this in the first appeal.

A photograph of the disabled occupants valid Blue badge was included in the appeal as evidence.

(Breach of Equality Act 2010 - Failure to make reasonable adjustments before and after they were made aware an occupant of the vehicle had protected characteristics = criminal offence.

Service providers are required by law to make reasonable adjustments for disabled persons with protected characteristics as defined by the Equality Act 2010. Service providers are also required by law to anticipate the needs of disabled motorists. This should include a motorist forgetting to display a BB, or the badge being dislodged by external forces. Failing to make such reasonable adjustments is indirect discrimination.

Once the PPC was made aware that an occupant of the car was/is disabled, continuing to pursue the charge became direct discrimination. Both indirect and direct discrimination are criminal offences.

Premier Park the PPC was made aware that an occupant of the car was/is disabled, continuing to pursue the charge becomes direct discrimination. Both indirect and direct discrimination are criminal offences.

From the photos attached and taken by the Premier Park operative, I put the Premier Park the PPC to strict proof that the parking operative did not make a thorough search of the vehicle through all windows and deliberately took photos from angles that would not show the badge on display.

It is also clear to see in the photos that there is a large amount of deep puddles scattered around the car park from the wind and heavy rainfall on that day.

I put Premier Park to proof their operative searched for the badge, didn't take photos from odd angles, and didn't dislodge the blue badge during the observation and ticketing process. 

I believe it is much more likely that the badge was dislodged by wind rocking the car or by a person or persons unknown bouncing up and down with malice aforethought. 

Further, Premier Park are not the landowners and have No standing to issue charges in their own name. I Put the Premier Park PPC to strict proof that the contrary is true.


2. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

3. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge

In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.
 

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

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner.

Fruitcake

You can post your draft appeal over two or more posts if it won't all fit in one.

Your point 1 heading doesn't match your point 1 text.

You haven't put the PPC to strict proof their operative searched the car for the badge, didn't take photos from odd angles, and didn't dislodge the badge during the ticketing process.

You only need to win on one point. The PPC has to win on every point. The more points you include, the harder it is for the PPC to win.

fisherjim

2. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

POPLA are likely to dismiss this statement without dated photographic proof, but it needs to be in of course.

confusedannie

fruitcake - I have 4 photos. should I add this...
"The photos the operative took were from the rear of the car, the front, showing the roof and the windscreen which was misty due the weather conditions on the day. The operative took only photos of the drivers side which is obscured by shadows".

Am I allowed to post the photos on here for you to look at?

fisherjim - the photos the operative took are not date stamped.

Fruitcake

By all means post the images here, with your VRM redacted. 

Embed the photos in your appeal, don't use links. State, if true, that the photos have been taken from odd angled that do not clearly show the windscreen/dashboard area.

fisherjim

confusedannie said:

fruitcake - I have 4 photos. should I add this...
"The photos the operative took were from the rear of the car, the front, showing the roof and the windscreen which was misty due the weather conditions on the day. The operative took only photos of the drivers side which is obscured by shadows".

Am I allowed to post the photos on here for you to look at?

fisherjim - the photos the operative took are not date stamped.

Excellent! That needs to be highlighted to POPLA, though they do tend to side with the PPC where ever they can.

confusedannie

  I’v been struggling how to add photos, I had to chop off my number plate in the photo

confusedannie

This is what I have about this bit... hope it makes sense.

Premier Park the PPC was made aware that an occupant of the car was/is disabled, continuing to pursue the charge becomes direct discrimination. Both indirect and direct discrimination are criminal offences.

From the photos attached and taken by the Premier Park operative, I put the Premier Park the PPC to strict proof that the parking operative did not make a thorough search of the vehicle through all windows and didn’t deliberately take photos from angles that would not show the badge on display.

It is also clear to see in the photos that there is a large amount of deep puddles scattered around the car park from the wind and heavy rainfall on that day.

None of the photos the operative took have a date stamp.

The photos the operative took were from the far rear of the car showing the back of the car from a distance. 

The front of the car showing the roof and the windscreen which was shady and misty due the weather conditions on the day. 

The photos the operative took, also only show only one side view of the car, this being the driver’s side window. This particular photo appears to be taken at an odd angle, it is obscured by shadows and from external images and does not give a clear and true representation of the blue badge being displayed. 

The photos have been taken from an odd angle that do not clearly show the windscreen/dashboard area.

There are no photos showing the front passenger side of the car or through the window which would, if the operative had taken them it would clearly show the blue badge clearly on display.

I put the Premier Park the PPC to strict proof that the parking operative’s photos are taken at odd angles. Also, that the operative did not make a thorough search of the vehicle through all windows and didn’t deliberately take photos from angles that would not show the badge on display.

I put the Premier Park the PPC to strict proof that the parking operative didn't take photos from odd angles, and didn't dislodge the blue badge during the observation and ticketing process. 

I believe it is much more likely that the badge was dislodged by wind rocking the car or by a person or persons unknown bouncing up and down with malice aforethought. 

Fruitcake

You need to reword that. You have changed the sense/meaning of a lot of your comments. For example, 

I put the Premier Park the PPC to strict proof that the parking operative did not make made a thorough search of the vehicle through all windows ...

Also, that the operative did not make made a thorough search of the vehicle through all windows ...

This is what I briefly outlined in my previous post,

No breach of parking terms - Blue Badge was displayed. Put the PPC to strict proof that the parking operative made a thorough search of the vehicle through all windows and didn't deliberately take photos from angles that would not show the badge on display. Put the PPC to strict proof that it was not their operative who dislodged the BB during the observation and ticketing process. 


The blue badge holder was a front seat passenger, therefore it is logical that they placed their blue badge on the passenger side of the dashboard.
The signs says that a valid blue badge "must be displayed in the windscreen area," yet the parking attendant has deliberately not provided photos of the whole of the windscreen area, by omitting images of the passenger side where the badge was located. 

Expand on the point about no time or date stamps by putting the operator to strict proof they were taken at the material time at the material location.

confusedannie

 This I my draft so far........

Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

Subject: Parking charge reference number: XXXXXXXXXX, Vehicle Registration: XXXXXXX,

I am the registered keeper of vehicle XXXXXXX and am appealing a parking charge from Premier Park on the following points:

I write to lodge my formal appeal in respect of the above-detailed Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) issued by Premier Park in respect of an alleged breach of Parking Terms and Conditions at Stanley Green Retail Park Earl Road, Cheadle Hulme SK8 6PT on 13th October 2023 at 14:10

I confirm that on that date, I was the vehicle’s keeper for the purpose of the corresponding definition in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”).

I set out below why I am not liable for this parking charge:

1. The parking terms and conditions have not been breached.

Breach of Equality Act 2010 - Failure to make reasonable adjustments before and after they were made aware an occupant of the vehicle had protected characteristics.

2. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.
3. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge.
4. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.

5. Failure to comply with the data protection …..(NOT SURE WHAT THIS COMES UNDER)…PLEASE ADVISE

The details on above points are as listed below:-

1.    The parking terms and conditions have not been breached.

The disabled occupants of the car suffer complex disability needs, has sever panic attacks and severe mobility issues needing assistance from another person.

The valid disabled badge was clearly displayed.

The occupant of the car was/is disabled and holds a valid disabled badge. 

Premier park was informed of this in the first appeal.

A photograph of the disabled occupant’s valid Blue badge was included in the Premier Park appeal as evidence.

(Breach of Equality Act 2010 - Failure to make reasonable adjustments before and after they were made aware an occupant of the vehicle had protected characteristics = criminal offence.

Service providers are required by law to make reasonable adjustments for disabled persons with protected characteristics as defined by the Equality Act 2010. Service providers are also required by law to anticipate the needs of disabled motorists. This should include a motorist forgetting to display a BB, or the badge being dislodged by external forces. Failing to make such reasonable adjustments is indirect discrimination.
Once the PPC was made aware that an occupant of the car was/is disabled, continuing to pursue the charge became direct discrimination. Both indirect and direct discrimination are criminal offences.

Premier Park the PPC was made aware that an occupant of the car was/is disabled, continuing to pursue the charge becomes direct discrimination. Both indirect and direct discrimination are criminal offences.

From the photos attached and taken by the Premier Park operative, I put the Premier Park the PPC to strict proof that the parking operative did not make a thorough search of the vehicle through all windows and didn’t deliberately take photos from angles that would not show the badge on display.

It is also clear to see in the photos that there is a large amount of deep puddles scattered around the car park from the wind and heavy rainfall on that day.

None of the photos the operative took have a date stamp.

The photos the operative took were from the far rear of the car showing the back of the car from a distance. 

The front of the car showing the roof and the windscreen which was shadowed, shady and misty due the weather conditions on the day. 

The photos the operative took, also only show only one side view of the front of the car, this being the driver’s front side window. This particular photo appears to be taken at an odd angle, that do not clearly show the windscreen/dashboard area.

it is obscured by shadows and has external images in it. The photo does not give a clear and true representation of the blue badge being displayed. 

The photos have been taken from an odd angle that do not clearly show the windscreen/dashboard area.

There are no photos showing the front passenger side of the car or through the window which would, if the operative had taken them, clearly show the blue badge clearly on display.

I put the Premier Park the PPC to strict proof that the parking operative’s photos are taken at odd angles. Also, that the operative did not make a thorough search of the vehicle through all windows and didn’t deliberately take photos from angles that would not show the badge on display.

I put the Premier Park the PPC to strict proof that the parking operative didn't take photos from odd angles, and didn't dislodge the blue badge during the observation and ticketing process. 

I believe it is much more likely that the badge was dislodged by wind rocking the car or by a person or persons unknown bouncing up and down with malice aforethought. 

 

Further, Premier Park are not the landowners and have No standing to issue charges in their own name. I Put the Premier Park PPC to strict proof that the contrary is true.