POPLA Appeal (ECP) - Submitted - awaiting response

MikeHammer · 15 December 2017 at 4:49PM

Umkomaas wrote: »

As your initial appeal hasn’t even been rejected by the PPC, and you don’t have a POPLA verification code yet, I’d guess that the scarce resource here will be dealing with cases that are further forward in the need for immediate assistance and action.

Thanks for that.. the advice on these forums about PPC's never upholding appeals and to get working on your POPLA case whilst you await the inevitable rejection must all be wrong then I take it..

Quentin · 15 December 2017 at 5:02PM

MikeHammer wrote: »

Thanks for that.. the advice on these forums about PPC's never upholding appeals and to get working on your POPLA case whilst you await the inevitable rejection must all be wrong then I take it..

You have misunderstood (,or not read the Newbies faq on appeals)

Reread it to see that there are 2 associations involved.

Different outcomes for appeals depending on who you deal with

MikeHammer · 15 December 2017 at 6:05PM

Nope - haven’t misunderstood it thanks.. read lots of things including he newbie thread numerous times..

Umkomaas · 15 December 2017 at 7:18PM

MikeHammer wrote: »

Thanks for that.. the advice on these forums about PPC's never upholding appeals and to get working on your POPLA case whilst you await the inevitable rejection must all be wrong then I take it..

Of course they’re not wrong! But it’s just about the prioritisation of time and not getting bogged down going through a 20 page POPLA appeal which is not yet even at POPLA stage. There’s a limit to how many mind-numbing War and Peace POPLA drafts people can go through. And the number of regulars prepared to analyse POPLA appeals (I’m one), are no more than three or four.

I just gave you my view as to why no one had yet provided any feedback - you seemed to be questioning why no feedback. Wasn’t really expecting such a slightly sarky response.

Most days we are having to rattle through dozens of wide ranging, sometimes complicated threads and posts, many which are requiring urgent attention, often close to court appearance. Some OPs feel their cases are so desperately important, they even put multiple exclamation marks in their thread title!

We are having to paddle fast, just to tread water most of the time. Yours is not the only case on the forum, and you will get help, but your timescale for requiring help could well be out of sync with that of the small numbers of regulars, who give freely of their time on here.

Quentin · 15 December 2017 at 7:22PM

MikeHammer wrote: »

Nope - haven’t misunderstood it thanks.. read lots of things including he newbie thread numerous times..

Nowhere in the faq does it say anything along the lines of "all appeals to bpa companies will fail so get on with constructing a popla appeal!"

MikeHammer · 15 December 2017 at 9:14PM

Quentin wrote: »

Nowhere in the faq does it say anything along the lines of "all appeals to bpa companies will fail so get on with constructing a popla appeal!"

No it doesn’t - you’re right.. however I’ve read advice along the lines of “in the meantime get on with constructing your POPLA appeal” in lots of responses to posts from people asking what they should do following the receipt of a PCN...

Umkomaas wrote: »

Of course they’re not wrong! But it’s just about the prioritisation of time and not getting bogged down going through a 20 page POPLA appeal which is not yet even at POPLA stage. There’s a limit to how many mind-numbing War and Peace POPLA drafts people can go through. And the number of regulars prepared to analyse POPLA appeals (I’m one), are no more than three or four.

I just gave you my view as to why no one had yet provided any feedback - you seemed to be questioning why no feedback. Wasn’t really expecting such a slightly sarky response.

Most days we are having to rattle through dozens of wide ranging, sometimes complicated threads and posts, many which are requiring urgent attention, often close to court appearance. Some OPs feel their cases are so desperately important, they even put multiple exclamation marks in their thread title!

We are having to paddle fast, just to tread water most of the time. Yours is not the only case on the forum, and you will get help, but your timescale for requiring help could well be out of sync with that of the small numbers of regulars, who give freely of their time on here.

I owe you an apology - my response was sarcastic and unnecessary.. I thought I was responding to some patronising sarcasm from you in your post and I can tell from your latest reply I simply misread the tone and for that I apologise.

I appreciate you taking the time to further explain what you meant and understand where you’re coming from.

MikeHammer · 10 January 2018 at 9:38AM

Yesterday my appeal to ECP was rejected. I am now at the stage where I need to submit my POPLA appeal and would very much appreciate any feedback/comments you have to offer. My first draft of the POPLA appeal can be found here.

NOTE::

I’m not leaving the red text in – it’s a reminder to me that I need to do something with that part of the document.
Any formatting issues will be sorted before submitting.
Also I’m not linking to the MoneySavingExpert forums at any point – again, just a reminder for myself.

I'd appreciate feedback on the whole thing but specific questions I have are around:

Inclusion of section 3 (evidence that individual is the driver)?
Include image taken from where car was parked showing inadequacy of signage? Or would this implicate me as the driver?
Do sections 1 and 2 contradict themselves? Specifically section 1 talks about time taken to locate signage, read it and leave whereas section 2 quotes case law where a motorist didn’t see any signs.
Ordering of sections based on strength of evidence.

Thank you in advance.

Umkomaas · 10 January 2018 at 12:18PM

I'd appreciate feedback on the whole thing but specific questions I have are around:

Nicely formatted, makes reading 22 pages of text easier than (often presented) semi-literate 10-page walls of text with hardly a full stop or comma in sight. Use of embedded photos is far better than blind copy and paste links to send the assessor, yet again, careering around the internet. It helps not to alienate the assessor, dealing with your case, their zillionth of the week, just before knocking off time on a miserable Friday evening! What a mind-numbing job.

1. Inclusion of section 3 (evidence that individual is the driver)?

No harm in leaving it in, the PPC will have to deal with it. Ordinarily this para follows a strong ‘No Keeper Liability’ assertion.

You have referred to the fact that there is no ‘Period of Parking’ shown on the NtK - is there anything else where the NtK is deficient, to enable you to nail ‘No Keeper Liability’?

2. Include image taken from where car was parked showing inadequacy of signage? Or would this implicate me as the driver?

The driver will have told you exactly where they parked, you subsequently have visited to check and photograph signage etc. There is no implication. You’re overthinking things.

3. Do sections 1 and 2 contradict themselves? Specifically section 1 talks about time taken to locate signage, read it and leave whereas section 2 quotes case law where a motorist didn’t see any signs.

I think you’re giving too much credence to the prospect of an assessor forensically analysing, comparing and contrasting sections of the appeal against each other. This isn’t a murder trial. But if you’re uneasy and you want to omit Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest, then I don’t think it would do you any damage. What point were you trying to make with it in the first place?

Ordering of sections based on strength of evidence.

As good as any order, unless you can really nail ‘No Keeper Liability’ then that would be #1, followed by ‘No evidence that individual is the driver’

HTH

MikeHammer · 11 January 2018 at 12:22PM

Thank you Umkomaas for taking the time to look through the document and provide some feedback. I appreciate you guys must get bored of doing this so thank you for doing so.

The latest draft of my appeal can be found here.

To respond to your comments:

You have referred to the fact that there is no ‘Period of Parking’ shown on the NtK - is there anything else where the NtK is deficient, to enable you to nail ‘No Keeper Liability’?

This comment relates to section 5 of my appeal document. The reason I mention "period of parking" is because the NtK does not explicitly relate the ANPR times to a "Period of Parking". It states that the vehicle "entered" at a given time and "departed" at a given time and later on claims that "the vehicle was parked at...." the NtK also states that the ANPR cameras are used to "calculate duration of stay" ("stay" - not "parking").

Question: Worth leaving in?

I can't see anywhere that the NtK is deficient. The dates issued are within the time period allowed and the days I have to respond are correct.

The driver will have told you exactly where they parked, you subsequently have visited to check and photograph signage etc. There is no implication. You’re overthinking things.

The above point was in relation to including a photograph of the lack of signage visible from where the vehicle was parked. I have added an image (Fig 7) into Section 2 and accompanying text.

Question: Do you think this addition is ok?

I think you’re giving too much credence to the prospect of an assessor forensically analysing, comparing and contrasting sections of the appeal against each other. This isn’t a murder trial. But if you’re uneasy and you want to omit Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest, then I don’t think it would do you any damage. What point were you trying to make with it in the first place?

The above point was in response to my question of if sections 1 (grace period) and 2 (inadequate signage) contradict themselves. Where I was going with this was section 1 suggests that the time quoted on the NtK (10mins 48secs) is a reasonable period to find signage, read it, reject T&C's and leave. Section 2 then claims inadequate/invisible/illegible signage.

The reason Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest was left in was to make the point that if the signs are not seen/read, a person cannot be bound by the terms of them. There's a paragraph just after the introduction of the case that explains this:

"This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established."

Does that help respond to your comments? If you have any advice based on my responses or any further comments to make I'd be very grateful.

Thanks again for your time.

Umkomaas · 11 January 2018 at 1:59PM

This comment relates to section 5 of my appeal document. The reason I mention "period of parking" is because the NtK does not explicitly relate the ANPR times to a "Period of Parking". It states that the vehicle "entered" at a given time and "departed" at a given time and later on claims that "the vehicle was parked at...." the NtK also states that the ANPR cameras are used to "calculate duration of stay" ("stay" - not "parking").

Question: Worth leaving in?

Definitely. It makes ECP provide their side of this element. In the absence of any other NtK deficiency, you might want to bolster this paragraph by going to town on the requirement of the law in PoFA (PoFA requirements are not merely guidelines, they are the law), and there is nothing in that law that allows for the PPC, nor POPLA, to interpret period on site (or entry/exit times) as being the equivalent of the unequivocal term ‘parking’.

The above point was in relation to including a photograph of the lack of signage visible from where the vehicle was parked. I have added an image (Fig 7) into Section 2 and accompanying text.

Question: Do you think this addition is ok?

I don’t think it is disadvantageous to your case.

The above point was in response to my question of if sections 1 (grace period) and 2 (inadequate signage) contradict themselves. Where I was going with this was section 1 suggests that the time quoted on the NtK (10mins 48secs) is a reasonable period to find signage, read it, reject T&C's and leave. Section 2 then claims inadequate/invisible/illegible signage.

You should describe the amount of time taken for the driver to enter the car park, circle around to find a suitable parking space, park, walk around the car park to find the signs, then the driver noticed there were various signs, so you needed to check out what each one said. Then having read it was not a free car park - left. +48 seconds is de minimis and there’s no guaranteed accuracy of the PPCs equipment.

HTH

POPLA Appeal (ECP) - Submitted - awaiting response

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free