PCN on university campus - POPLA appeal check

wangbadan · 13 October 2018 at 4:04PM

Hi there,

My appeal just came back from POPLA with an evidence pack from the PPC. My original appeal was on four grounds:

1) No breach of contract (relates to inaccurate info about the meaning of "yearly", provided by the vendor (university)).
2) Unlawful charge - Three duplicate PCNs issued for one single parking event (the car was not moved between each PCN, no mention of 24 hour clause on signage OR in contract)
3) No evidence of landowner authority
4) Inadequate signage

The PPC have sent in a bunch of additional photos, none of which seem to counter my claims on point 4. They also sent a copy of the contract (heavily redacted), plus a generic overall statement (which is an exact copy of another one I found on here). It includes this line: "The appellant has failed to provide us with a full name and serviceable address of the driver at the time of contravention, we have now invoked keeper liability." This is inaccurate and does not relate at all to my case, as I (stupidly) provided my info in my original appeal, not knowing any better. Clearly, the PPC has simply attached pics of my car to a copy pasted statement (as found elsewhere on this forum).

My question is: what sort of approach should I take in providing my comments to give the best impression on POPLA? Is there a specific process to follow?

TIA for any tips.

KeithP · 13 October 2018 at 4:16PM

Your best bet is to re-read post #3 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

Especially the bit following:
AFTER SUBMITTING YOUR POPLA APPEAL:

wangbadan · 13 October 2018 at 4:20PM

Thanks Keith. One quick question: Am I restricted to using the 2000 character box on the POPLA site, or can I just email my comments to POPLA (one email for each PCN number) ?

KeithP · 13 October 2018 at 4:28PM

The current thinking here is that PoPLA simply will not bother to read a long rebuttal.

Stick to the 2000 characters.

wangbadan · 14 October 2018 at 5:02PM

Hi there,
I've drafted my rebuttal based on the info in the newbies thread. I only addressed 3 points of the original 4, as the operator provided what looks like a valid landowner contract, albeit heavily redacted. Does anyone have any comments on this rebuttal before I send it off to POPLA?
Thanks for any pointers, as always.

***

Ref: POPLA appeal: XXX

The operator has submitted a 29 point ‘evidence’ pack in support of their disputed invoice. I do not intend to address every point in detail, as the text is clearly a copy-pasted template, much of which is inaccurate or indeed irrelevant to this case. Exact copies of this very text exist online, suggesting a certain lack of attention to detail on the part of the operator.

I therefore ask the assessor to consider the following points in support of my original POPLA appeal, submitted on 20/09/2018.

No breach of contract. The vendor (the University) provided misleading information on its website, using the term ‘yearly’ to describe the permit, without any additional explanations or alternative meanings of this term. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 states that “in any case of ambiguity in meaning, the most favourable interpretation MUST be used.” Clearly, the most favourable interpretation of ‘yearly’ is 12 months, hence this permit, purchased October 2017, was still valid at the time of the alleged infraction. I have provided details of this omission to the University’s Head of Security, Mr X (signatory to the heavily redacted contract…), and asked him to consider invoking the cancellation clause for genuine customers.

Unlawful charge, no 24-hour clause. The signage does not mention a 24 hour clause, so only one PCN can be issued for a single parking event. Hence, 2 of the PCNs are invalid under the terms of the contract. The car was not moved between PCNs (I have solid evidence of this), with the onus on the operator to prove otherwise. Their supplied photos are insufficient.

Inadequate signage - The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. The elaborate assortment of photos, maps, etc provided by the operator show nothing different from my original photos, which clearly prove a distinct lack of signage in easy view of the driver. The specific location where this car was parked has no signage to the front or sides of the driver’s seat view. Furthermore, a genuine customer holding a valid permit would have no motivation to go out of their way to study parking signage in detail.

Umkomaas · 14 October 2018 at 5:13PM

You've only 2,000 characters (not words) to play with, but you've overshot @ 2,182 so you'll need to do a bit of pruning.

But I would definitely argue about the amount of redaction of the contract and argue that it is putting you at a disadvantage in not seeing all the terms (the only part you can't really demand to see is the £££s element of the contract).

I know this will add to the burden of reducing your character count, but important enough IMHO to warrant some major surgery on what you've already drafted.

KeithP · 14 October 2018 at 5:19PM

To help with the character count, the whole of the paragraph starting "The operator has submitted..." can go.

wangbadan · 15 October 2018 at 11:42AM

OK, have taken into account all the advice I've received, and here's my new rebuttal. It's just over 2000 chars but can cut it further. Do you think it's pretty much good to go?

##

Please consider the following points in support of my original POPLA appeal, submitted on 20/09/2018.

No NtK was ever served.
There was no breach of contract, for the reasons already explained in my appeal. In short, the permit vendor (the landowner) breached terms of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in relation to the most common meaning of ‘yearly’. Hence, this permit was still valid at the time of alleged breach. The landowner’s Head of Security, Mr X, has been informed and is taking action.
No 24 hour clause on signage (see p14 of evidence pack). 3 PCNs were issued for one uninterrupted parking event, with onus on the operator to prove the car was moved between PCNs. I can prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was not, and the operator’s photos are insufficient proof.
Inadequate signage. Despite many ‘evidence’ photos and maps, none disprove my point that in this specific parking space signage cannot be viewed whatsoever from either the front or sides of the car. The presence of one sign behind a thick hedge, or far behind and far to the side of this specific parking space, is not sufficient.
The many ‘evidence’ photos of signage on the entire site still do NOT prove that any were clearly visible from this specific car parking space at the time of alleged breach. As can be seen in the provided aerial map, this space differs from most of the car park, being located in front of a thick, high hedge, with NO presence of signage in front, or indeed anywhere along this parking row. This can be seen in P11 & 12 of the ‘evidence’ pack, and easily backed up via Google satellite maps.
Despite ‘updated’ signage, the text (including the £60 charge) remains too small to read clearly. Plus, it is located far above normal head height. Size of sign is irrelevant; size of text is.
No landowner contract. The contract is heavily redacted, as is the name of the landowner signatory. Hence, validity cannot be proven; this contract could easily be fake. Plus, the excessive redaction deliberately aims to puts me at a disadvantage by hiding key points.

wangbadan · 8 November 2018 at 10:45AM

Quick update on the POPLA decisions. My appeal was successful against two of the PCNs, but unsuccessful against the original one. Massive thanks to everyone here for your help! :T

Now...I wonder how much effort the operator is prepared to make to recover a single PCN... :A:eek:

waamo · 8 November 2018 at 10:51AM

If this is First Parking here are the odds http://www.parkingappeals.info/companydata/First_Parking_LLP.html

I would sleep easy.

PCN on university campus - POPLA appeal check

Comments

Categories

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