POPLA operator evidence

BagpussRules

I am just looking to reply to evidence submitted by PPS (London) Ltd.

FI: The first part of my POPLA appeal is 'No Contract has been breached - PPS (London) Ltd's appeal response letter claims to quote signage on site of PRIVATE LAND, PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY. There is no offer to park, so as it cannot therefore be a parking charge emanating from a contract (for the driver to breach), the charge can only therefore be a penalty. No private organisation can issue/charge a penalty, only an authority such as local council or the police can issue this.

However another point was 'No evidence of landowner authority' - this is part of the evidence that PPS have attached to POPLA that I would like to challenge.  I have attached the contract.  Now Havenwoods Investments Ltd were not incorporated until 20/04/19 and did not actually purchase the land until 24/01/2000 so how can they possibly have signed the contract effective from 04/02/2013?
The contract also does not state all the information it should as per Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP so can I throw it back as N/A?

Umkomaas

What on earth is that Thailand address?  I'd be making something of that in your POPLA appeal.  Talk about 'back of a fag packet'!

I'm sure you'll have a happy ending! 🤓

BagpussRules

Umkomaas said:

What on earth is that Thailand address?  I'd be making something of that in your POPLA appeal.  Talk about 'back of a fag packet'!

I'm sure you'll have a happy ending! 🤓

🤣
The Company 'Havenwoods Investments Ltd' have been dormant since 2021.
I'm just not sure how to address this piece of 'evidence' or lack of an actual contract in POPLA speak.

Coupon-mad

There is no landowner authority para 7 of the BPA CoP any more. It changed in October 2024.

In your comments, state that:

A major point in my appeal was 'No evidence of landowner authority' and the operator has failed to show valid evidence. Companies House records show that  'Havenwoods Investments Ltd' have been dormant since 2021. They were also not incorporated ('Ltd') until 20/04/19 and did not actually purchase the land until 24/01/2000 so how can they possibly have signed the contract effective from 04/02/2013?

BagpussRules

Is this to OTT:

4. Signage

Operator case summary # 14,Signage, PPS+-+Entrance+Sign, shows the sign is 50cm x 60cm.  Insitu, I refute this as per the below calculations and advise this sign is actually 35cm x 45cm.

·        A standard fence slat = 8.7cm and the sign covers 4slats = 34.84cm.

·        Maximum fence height 6ft – as per image #6, Western+Avenue,+Ealing,+W5+1EX+-+Entrance+Sign the picture shows this fence height is  ¼ covered by the sign. 6ft = 182cm / 4 = 45cm

Annexe A, A.2 of the BPA ‘Single Code of Practice’ 27th June 2024, in the situation ‘car park entered from higher speed or using a length of access road’ text must be a minimum height of 90mm (9cm).

Based on the image that PPS have sent, 14th piece of Operator case summary, and the signage reportingly being at 50cm x 60cm the  ‘PRIVATE LAND’ text at the top would be the correct 9cm.  However, as the actual sign is 25% smaller than they state at just 35 x 45cm the text is actually only 6.75cm so does NOT conform.  The vehicle entered via a length of access road as clearly visible in their #18th piece of Operator case summary evidence so the size of the text is not adequate.

There is also no wording anywhere on the Entrance sign from Group 1 of Annexe A.1 of the BPA ‘Single Code of Practice’ 27th June 2024 showing this area as ‘Permit Holders Only’.

Coupon-mad

Chuck it in and see.

Doesn't actually matter if POPLA appeals are won or not.

BagpussRules

Advised by POPLA a decision in 6-8weeks from original appeal...today is the 8 week point.  Wonder when they may look at this.

Ralph-y

they are often behind ......

BagpussRules

Unsuccessful POPLA appeal.
Ignored my main point totally and clearly did not read my reply to the operators fictitious evidence.

Coupon-mad

BagpussRules said:

Unsuccessful POPLA appeal.
Ignored my main point totally and clearly did not read my reply to the operators fictitious evidence.

No worries, we expected that!