Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • sbhullar
    • By sbhullar 10th Aug 18, 7:34 PM
    • 14Posts
    • 1Thanks
    sbhullar
    Rejected Popla. New Ticket, Same Circumstances- How to improve wording to win?
    • #1
    • 10th Aug 18, 7:34 PM
    Rejected Popla. New Ticket, Same Circumstances- How to improve wording to win? 10th Aug 18 at 7:34 PM
    So my car was parked at Manchester Royal Infirmary multistory carpark 2 days in a row but they had removed the tokens method of payment. The driver thought there was an issue with the machines as there were grey sacks over the bases of the barriers and they were up so the driver just parked and left. It later transpired that the payment method had changed to ANPR and that the driver was expected to type the registration plate in a machine near the exit, then pay. As the registered keeper I received a car parking fine for the first day- which was appealed using some of the info on this website however it was rejected by Popla. This remains unpaid (rejected appeal 2 months ago), but they have not chased me up about it? They have now sent me a ticket for the second day so I am calling on you awesome forum users to help me succeed at Popla for this second rediculous charge. Please see my original appeal and then the Popla response. Please can anyone advise me on how to win....



    My Appeal:

    Dear POPLA,



    PCN Number: XXXXXXX
    POPLA Verification Code:XXXXXXXX


    I write to you as the registered keeper of the vehicle XXXXX, I wish to appeal the 70 Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by ParkingEye Ltd. Based on the circumstances I submit the reasons below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:

    1. ParkingEye Ltd has no contractual authority

    2. Keeper Liability Requirements and the Protection of Freedom Act

    3. ANPR Accuracy and Compliance

    4. No Contract was entered into between the Parking Eye and the Driver or Registered keeper

    5. The car park had unclear, non-obvious, non-BPA-compliant signage leading to the driver not being aware that a parking contract was being offered at the time (dusk).

    6. No evidence of Landowner Authority



    1. ParkingEye Ltd has no contractual authority In the notices they have sent me ParkingEye Ltd have not shown any evidence that they have any proprietary interest in the car park/land in question. Also, they have not provided me with any evidence that they are lawfully entitled to demand money from either the driver or keeper. It would seem that they do not own or have any interest or assignment of title in the land. I can only assume instead they are agents for the owner/legal occupier instead. I submit therefore that they do not have the necessary legal right to make the charge for a vehicle using the car park. I require ParkingEye Ltd to provide a full, up-to date and signed/dated contract with the landowner (a statement saying someone has seen the contract is not enough). The contract needs to state that ParkingEye Ltd are entitled to pursue matters such as these through the issue of Parking Charge Notices and in the courts in their own name. I clarify that this should be an actual unredacted copy and not just a document that claims a contract/agreement exists.



    2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge. In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA !!!8220;keeper liability!!!8221; 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. Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay, not by POPLA, nor the operator, nor even in court. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a POFA-compliant NTK. Only full compliance with Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence that a keeper was the driver) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed by POPLA to be the liable party. The burden of proof rests with the
    Operator, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, to show that (as an individual) I have
    personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for
    their parking charge. They cannot.
    The vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister,
    Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:-
    Understanding keeper liability
    !!!8220;There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are
    strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the
    vehicle.
    There is no !!!8216;reasonable presumption!!!8217; in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver.
    Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice
    issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to
    name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not
    generally pass.!!!8221;
    No lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from a keeper, where an operator is NOT
    attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA. This exact finding was made in a
    very similar case with the same style NTK in 6061796103 v ParkingEye in September 2016, where
    POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
    !!!8220;I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the
    Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based
    on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to
    demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the
    appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant.
    Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.!!!8221;



    3. ANPR Accuracy and Compliance
    I require ParkingEye Ltd to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car
    park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is
    important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that ParkingEye Ltd must produce evidence in response to these points and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed
    ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the Operator in ParkingEye v Fox-
    Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence from the Operator
    was !!!8220;fundamentally flawed!!!8221; as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been
    called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.
    So, in addition to showing their maintenance records, I require ParkingEye Ltd in this case to show
    evidence to rebut this point: I suggest that in the case of my vehicle being in this car park, a local
    camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by
    the internet and do not have a common !!!8220;time synchronisation system!!!8221;, there is no proof that the
    time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The operator appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so !!!8220;live!!!8221; is not really !!!8220;live!!!8221;. Hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. Therefore I
    contend that this ANPR !!!8220;evidence!!!8221; from this Operator in this car park is just as unreliable as the
    ParkingEye system in the Fox-Jones case and I put this Operator to strict proof to the contrary.
    In addition, the unreliable/unsynchronised ANPR system used, and lack of information about the use
    of data, is not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice, which contains the following:
    21. Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR)
    21.1. You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car
    parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the
    car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.
    21.2. Quality checks: before you issue a parking charge notice you must carry out a manual quality check of the ANPR images to reduce errors and make sure that it is appropriate to take action. Full details of the items you should check are listed in the Operators!!!8217; Handbook.
    21.3. You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your car parks in good working order. You need to make sure the data you are collecting is accurate, securely held and cannot be tampered with.
    21.4. It is also a condition of the Code that, if you receive and process vehicle or registered keeper
    data, you must:
    !!!61599; - be registered with the Information Commissioner
    !!!61599; - keep to the Data Protection Act
    !!!61599; - follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data
    !!!61599; - follow the guidelines from the Information Commissioner!!!8217;s Office on the use of CCTV and ANPR cameras, and on keeping and sharing personal data such as vehicle registration marks.
    At this location, there are merely a couple of secret small cameras up high on a pole. No signs at the
    car park clearly tell drivers about this technology nor how the data captured by ANPR cameras will be used. This means the system does not operate in a reasonable, consistent and transparent
    manner, and I have reason to believe that, potentially, every section of paragraph 21 is breached here. Unless the Operator can show documentary evidence otherwise, then this BPA Cop breach would also point to a failure to comply with the POFA 2012 (keeper liability requires strict
    compliance), a failure to comply with the ICO terms of registration and a breach of the CPUTR 2008 (claiming to comply with the BPA Code of Practice when I believe it is not the case). This Operator is put to strict proof to the contrary.



    4. No Contract was entered into between the Parking Eye and the Driver or Registered keeper
    Although I was not the driver of the event, I would like to point out that the signs at the car park in
    question are unsuitable to inform drivers of the full terms and conditions of what they are entering into by physically entering the car park. ParkingEye clearly relies on contract law, but does not do enough to make clear what the terms and conditions of the contract are, making it far too easy for
    people to unwittingly fall outside the terms of contract. It is not appropriate for a car park such as
    this to have such a limited amount of signs and rely on drivers to look carefully for where and how the terms are displayed. It is surely the responsibility of ParkingEye Ltd to make the terms of their
    contract far clearer so that drivers have no doubt whatsoever of any supposed contract they may be
    entering into. I require ParkingEye Ltd to provide evidence as to how clear the terms and conditions
    are and consider if the methods used are clear enough for this type of car park. I would specifically like them to look into how clear the signs are that inform drivers that ANPR cameras are in use on this site.
    Furthermore a contract can only be considered to be entered into if enough evidence exists that it
    actually happened. For a contract to have been entered into the driver would have had to get out of
    the car, read the signs, fully interpret and understand them and then agree to them. None of which ever actually happened.
    I request that ParkingEye Ltd provide concrete evidence that a contract existed between themselves
    and the driver on the day in question, which meets all the legal requirements of forming a contract. They should include specific things including, agreement from both parties, clarity and certainty of terms etc. If they are not met then the contract would be deemed !!!8220;unfair!!!8221; under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999.



    5. The car park had unclear, non-obvious, non-BPA-compliant signage leading to the driver not
    being aware that a parking contract was being offered at the time (dusk on a gloomy evening).
    As a POPLA assessor has said previously in an adjudication !!!8220;Once an Appellant submits that the
    terms of parking were not displayed clearly enough, the onus is then on the Operator to demonstrate that the signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently clear!!!8221;.
    The parking company needs to prove that the driver actually saw, read and accepted the terms, which means that I and the POPLA adjudicator would be led to believe that a conscious decision was made by the driver to park in exchange for paying the extortionate fixed amount that Parking Eye is now demanding, rather than simply the nominal amount presumably due in a machine on site.
    The alleged breach occurred on at dusk on a gloomy evening and the signs were not readily visible
    (readable) or illuminated to be seen by any driver entering the car park at that time of the day; the
    car park itself had minimal illumination. These are not mitigating circumstances but failure by ParkingEye plus to ensure that their signs were to be seen accordingly. The BPA Code of Practice
    section 18, state that clear signage must be erected at each entrance and additional signage installed throughout the area. The signs must be visible at all times of the day; these requirements were not met and I demand strict proof that those signs are readily visible at the time of darkness.
    The BPA Code of Practice, Appendix B, under Contrast and illumination:
    Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or
    at dusk if and when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. This can be achieved in
    a variety of ways such as by direct lighting or by using the lighting for the parking area. If the sign itself is not directly or indirectly lit, we suggest that it should be made of a retro-reflective material
    similar to that used on public roads and described in the Traffic Signs Manual. Dark-coloured areas
    do not need to be reflective.
    Clearly none of these conditions were met (see pictures provided).
    Furthermore, the landmark case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 establishes that a parking charge will only be valid where signage is clear and the driver therefore able to be fully aware of any
    charges. ParkingEye did not provide me with evidence that such signs, if present, were available
    throughout the car park and visible, from the area where the car was parked at the time of the
    event.



    6. No evidence of Landowner Authority
    As ParkingEye Ltd does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any !!!8220;site agreement!!!8221; or
    !!!8220;User Manual!!!8221; setting out details including exemptions - such as any !!!8220;genuine customer!!!8221; or
    !!!8220;genuine resident!!!8221; exemptions or any site occupier!!!8217;s !!!8220;right of veto!!!8221; charge cancellation rights - is
    key evidence to define what ParkingEye is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that
    the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).
    Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic
    documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the
    definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.
    Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace
    periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply.
    Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums
    have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).
    Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict
    proof of full compliance:
    7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure
    that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.
    7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:
    a) the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
    b) any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
    c) any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
    d) who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
    e) the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement
    Therefore, it is respectfully requested that this parking charge notice appeal be allowed, and the appeal upheld on every point.



    Yours faithfully,
    XXXXXX

    Please can anyone help me write abetter appeal??
    Last edited by sbhullar; 11-08-2018 at 1:51 PM.
Page 1
    • sbhullar
    • By sbhullar 10th Aug 18, 7:36 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    sbhullar
    • #2
    • 10th Aug 18, 7:36 PM
    • #2
    • 10th Aug 18, 7:36 PM
    ParkingEye submitted a lengthy document with pics and then...

    Popla Rejection:

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant has not disputed the behaviour that the operator alleges was in contravention of the terms and conditions of parking occurred. However, they have raised the following procedural disputes that they believe means the PCN is invalid; breach of the Protection of Freedoms Act, Schedule 4 (PoFA 2012); accuracy of the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) technology at the site; compliance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice in relation to adequate signage; and the operator!!!8217;s proprietary interest in the land/ ownership of a contractual agreement with the land owner. The appellant has provided a full document explaining each ground of appeal in more detail.


    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    The appellant has not been identified as the driver of the vehicle at the time of the contravention. As such, I must assess whether the operator has correctly transferred liability of the PCN. PoFA 2012 dictates the process that an operator must follow when holding the keeper of a vehicle responsible for payment of any unpaid PCN. The appellant has stated that the operator cannot apply PoFA 2012 in this case, however after reviewing the information received from both parties, the appellant has admitted to being the registered keeper of the vehicle and has not given the operator the driver!!!8217;s information. As such PoFA 2012 applies to the circumstances raised, and I am unsure why the appellant feels that the operator is unable to pursue them for the charge. Having reviewed the notice against the relevant sections, I am satisfied the notice complies with the requirements of PoFA 2012 and the liability to pay the PCN can be transferred to the Keeper. When entering onto a privately managed car park, the driver forms a contract with the operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage at the site sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. Therefore, upon entry to the car park, it is the duty of the driver to review the terms and conditions. If the driver remains on site we consider that they have agreed to the terms and conditions set out by the signage. The operator has issued the PCN for failure to purchase the appropriate parking time or remaining on site for longer than permitted. The operator has provided Automatic Number Plate Recognition images which show the vehicle !!!8216;XXXX XXX!!!8217; entering the site on 7 April 2018 at 9:25 and exiting on the same date at 17:07, a total parking period of 7 hours 42 minutes. The operator has also submitted transaction logs for the date of the contravention. These logs show that no payment or registration was received for the vehicle during the parking period. The appellant has not disputed the behaviour that the operator alleges was in contravention of the terms and conditions of parking occurred. However, they have raised the following procedural disputes that they believe means the PCN is invalid; breach of the Protection of Freedoms Act, Schedule 4 (PoFA 2012); accuracy of the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) technology at the site; compliance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice in relation to adequate signage; and the operator!!!8217;s proprietary interest in the land/ ownership of a contractual agreement with the land owner. The appellant has queried the accuracy of the ANPR technology on site. They have requested specific evidence from the operator, which it is not within my remit to request. However, I will advise the appellant that the burden of proof begins with the operator to show it issued the PCN correctly. If they do that by providing ANPR images that support its version of events, the burden of proof then passes to the appellant. If the appellant provides a version of events or evidence that then casts doubt on the legitimacy of the ANPR technology, it is up to the POPLA assessor!!!8217;s judgement as to whether this is sufficient to show the technology was not working. Evidence of inaccuracy can come in a number of forms, including the appellant!!!8217;s explanation of events. But physical evidence, such as a receipt to show the appellant was elsewhere, will often be more persuasive. In this case I have received no evidence to suggest that the ANPR cameras were faulty, or that the driver left and returned to the site. While the appellant may be able to provide further information on request it is not within my remit to ask for further evidence from either party, and I must make my decision using the details received. Within the appeals document, the appellant has challenged the operator on several requirements of onsite signage that fall under Sections 18.3, Appendix B and 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice. The operator has provided photographs of the signage and a site map to show where signs are placed throughout the site. The specific parking terms that the operator alleges have been breached are: !!!8220;Pay on exit!!!8230; Up to 24 hours 15.00!!!8230; All tariffs include the first 30 free minutes!!!8230; Parking tariffs apply 24 hours a day, 7 days a week!!!8230;. Your full, correct vehicle registration will be required!!!8230; Failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a Parking Charge of 70!!!8230;!!!8221; The minimum standards for signs are set out in the British Parking Association!!!8217;s (BPA) Code of Practice. Section 18.3 of the Code of Practice states the following: !!!8220;Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle!!!8230; must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.!!!8221; The evidence provided by the operator shows that the signage is clear and written in intelligible language. The terms of the parking contract are displayed in the open for drivers to review and the site map given is enough to satisfy my judgement that the amount of signage at the site is adequate for its!!!8217; size. Appendix B, of the BPA Code of Practice covers the requirements for sign contract and illumination. The appellant has explained the following concerns: !!!8220;The alleged breach occurred on at dusk on a gloomy evening and the signs were not readily visible (readable) or illuminated to be seen by any driver entering the car park at that time of the day; the car park itself had minimal illumination.!!!8221; However, I do not consider illumination to be a factor that would allow me to deem the PCN as issued incorrectly. The driver entered the site at 9:25 in the morning, it was at this point that the contract was offered and subsequently accepted by the driver. The driver was given the opportunity at this time to review the terms and conditions. As this would be within daylight hours I can see no reason that lighting and illumination would be an issue. Furthermore, I cannot hold the operator responsible if the appellant had not reviewed the signage on arrival as a grace period in which to do so is given and by remaining on the site for longer than the 10 minute grace period the driver has accepted the terms. Furthermore, on the date of the contravention the sunset at 19:44 over two and a half hours after the driver left the site. I find it reasonable to suggest that the natural lighting would have been sufficient for the driver to view the signage on return to their vehicle also. I would also note that the carpark is lit by strip lighting throughout, and had the level of natural lighting been insufficient the operator has still complied with the requirements of Appendix B. In response to the appellants!!!8217; specific comment regarding the BPA Code of Practice 21.1, the BPA Code of Practice states the following: !!!8220;You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.!!!8221; The signage uses a universally recognised symbol and also provides the information in writing: !!!8220;By entering this private car park, you consent, for the purpose of car park management to the capturing of photographs of the vehicle and registration by the ANPR camera and/or by the attendant and to the processing of this data...!!!8221; As such, I find the information to be transparent, easily identifiable and having reviewed the evidence I am satisfied that the operators!!!8217; signs are fully compliant with the BPA Code of Practice. I acknowledge the following comment provided by the appellant: !!!8220;Furthermore a contract can only be considered to be entered into if enough evidence exists that it actually happened. For a contract to have been entered into the driver would have had to get out of the car, read the signs, fully interpret and understand them and then agree to them. None of which ever actually happened. !!!8220; However, I must direct their attention to the BPA Code of Practice Section 18.3 which states that signs must be placed; !!!8220;so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle!!!8221; as the operator has evidenced that it has met this requirement, the responsibility then falls to the driver of the vehicle to ensure they have reviewed the signage and complied with any required actions in the terms and conditions should they decide to remain. If the appellant remains on site without reviewing the terms and conditions they have entered a contract with the operator, and the operator cannot be held responsible for the driver not reviewing the terms on the signage. The appellant has disputed the operator!!!8217;s proprietary interest in the relevant land and advised that they believe the operator does not hold a compliant legal contract. They have stated this means the operator has breached Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice outlines to operators, !!!8220;If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges!!!8221;. Section 22.16b of the BPA Code of Practice, advises a witness statement can be provided as evidence of authority to operate on the land. The evidence provided in relation to this appeal meets the criteria POPLA requires, and therefore I am satisfied that the operator has sufficient authority at the site on the date of the contravention. POPLA!!!8217;s role is to assess whether the operator has issued a PCN correctly in accordance with the specific parking conditions of the site, as well as appropriate policy and procedure. Having reviewed the evidence and comments provided by both parties, it is clear that the appellant has not disputed that the parking contract was breached. As I have reviewed each of the alleged procedural errors without finding any instance of non-compliance, I am satisfied that the PCN has been issued correctly. Therefore, I must refuse this appeal.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 10th Aug 18, 9:45 PM
    • 20,622 Posts
    • 32,526 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #3
    • 10th Aug 18, 9:45 PM
    • #3
    • 10th Aug 18, 9:45 PM
    Please see my original appeal and then the Popla response. Please can anyone advise me on how to win....
    One of two options:

    1. Ask the hospital to intervene and tell PE to cancel this. However, having won at POPLA against you, PE are unlikely to accede to their request.

    2. If PE file court proceedings against you, produce a winning defence to persuade a Judge of your case so he/she can tell PE they have no case against you.

    If any other regular can pull a rabbit out of the hat, you might get more ideas, but I doubt they can.

    Have you complained to your MP? They are the law makers, get them to support the Sir Greg Knight Bill currently going through its Parliamentary stages.
    Please note, we are not a legal, residential or credit advice forum, rather one that helps motorists fight private parking charges, primarily at the 'front-end' of the process.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • sbhullar
    • By sbhullar 10th Aug 18, 10:10 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    sbhullar
    • #4
    • 10th Aug 18, 10:10 PM
    • #4
    • 10th Aug 18, 10:10 PM
    Could I improve the appeal in anyway?
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 10th Aug 18, 10:17 PM
    • 38,003 Posts
    • 22,103 Thanks
    Quentin
    • #5
    • 10th Aug 18, 10:17 PM
    • #5
    • 10th Aug 18, 10:17 PM
    You want to use POFA arguments (PE usually have it sewn up), however your post does identify the driver!


    If you want to try POFA arguments you need to edit your post to remove details of who was driving


    The ppcs monitor here and can use your posts against you
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 10th Aug 18, 10:35 PM
    • 20,622 Posts
    • 32,526 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #6
    • 10th Aug 18, 10:35 PM
    • #6
    • 10th Aug 18, 10:35 PM
    OK, missed that you've got a second POPLA appeal opportunity in all that very badly formatted verbiage stretching to thousands of words. Just bad form to expect someone to simply plough through all that lot, with no effort to make it easier for them.

    Interesting that PE have not pursued this any further despite 2 months having passed since the POPLA decision in their favour. Ordinarily they are so swift to litigate, it might suggest that the hospital are not prepared for them to pursue patients/visitors through the courts (or PE feel they are on shaky ground) and this original ticket might (be allowed to) go no further.

    You might find one of the very few other regulars prepared to go through all 5,000 words in the huge walls of unformatted text from your original appeal and the POPLA response, to try to fashion a better result, but I'm not sure they will, or they can. The law of diminishing returns becomes a major factor.

    If you're a gambling person, I'd take some comfort in the fact that after 2 months since a favourable decision for them, PE have not slammed in a LBC or MCOL Claim.
    Please note, we are not a legal, residential or credit advice forum, rather one that helps motorists fight private parking charges, primarily at the 'front-end' of the process.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • sbhullar
    • By sbhullar 10th Aug 18, 11:23 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    sbhullar
    • #7
    • 10th Aug 18, 11:23 PM
    • #7
    • 10th Aug 18, 11:23 PM
    You came here to help and advise on my appeal. Wanting to be upfront and honest with you guys. Please dont judge me for your lack of attention to detail.
    Last edited by sbhullar; 10-08-2018 at 11:31 PM.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 10th Aug 18, 11:26 PM
    • 20,622 Posts
    • 32,526 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #8
    • 10th Aug 18, 11:26 PM
    • #8
    • 10th Aug 18, 11:26 PM
    You came here for help and advice on my appeal.
    I'm not sure I did!
    Please note, we are not a legal, residential or credit advice forum, rather one that helps motorists fight private parking charges, primarily at the 'front-end' of the process.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • sbhullar
    • By sbhullar 10th Aug 18, 11:28 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    sbhullar
    • #9
    • 10th Aug 18, 11:28 PM
    • #9
    • 10th Aug 18, 11:28 PM
    So why did you come here? Financial incentive? Nothing better to do?
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 10th Aug 18, 11:38 PM
    • 20,622 Posts
    • 32,526 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    You came here for help and advice on my appeal. Wanting to be upfront and honest with you guys. Please dont judge me for your lack of attention to detail.
    Originally posted by sbhullar
    So why did you come here? Financial incentive? Nothing better to do?
    Originally posted by sbhullar
    I didn't come here for either, thank you. In case you've missed it, I provide lots of advice - daily via nearly 19,000 inputs over the past 5+ years - to help people to avoid/beat private parking charges.

    Oh yes, I've certainly now got better things to do!
    Please note, we are not a legal, residential or credit advice forum, rather one that helps motorists fight private parking charges, primarily at the 'front-end' of the process.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 10th Aug 18, 11:40 PM
    • 11,290 Posts
    • 11,840 Thanks
    KeithP
    Have you asked PALS at Manchester Royal Infirmary for their help and assistance?
    .
    • sbhullar
    • By sbhullar 11th Aug 18, 12:05 AM
    • 14 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    sbhullar
    No I was there in staff capacity.
    • sbhullar
    • By sbhullar 11th Aug 18, 12:10 AM
    • 14 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    sbhullar
    I didn't come here for either, thank you. In case you've missed it, I provide lots of advice - daily via nearly 19,000 inputs over the past 5+ years - to help people to avoid/beat private parking charges.

    Oh yes, I've certainly now got better things to do!
    Originally posted by Umkomaas

    Well I suggest you do them better things. Because you are certainly not helping me with your condescending tone.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 11th Aug 18, 12:30 AM
    • 11,290 Posts
    • 11,840 Thanks
    KeithP
    No I was there in staff capacity.
    Originally posted by sbhullar
    Have you seen NHS patient, visitor and staff car parking principles?

    Perhaps 'facilities management' need reminding of this:
    NHS organisations are responsible for the actions of private contractors who run car parks on their behalf.
    .
    • sbhullar
    • By sbhullar 11th Aug 18, 1:29 AM
    • 14 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    sbhullar
    No I haven't seen that before but definitely looks great and worth a mention. Thanks
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 11th Aug 18, 8:48 AM
    • 11,002 Posts
    • 10,966 Thanks
    The Deep
    This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

    Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

    Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

    The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the House of Commons recently

    http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41 recently.

    and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 11th Aug 18, 10:29 AM
    • 38,031 Posts
    • 85,367 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    OP, why are you having a go at Umkomaas? He made a ribald comment about a post where you suggested people came here to ask YOU for help about your appeal.

    Your comment was obviously a mistake but you decided then to berate an experienced and well respected poster who has given up their own time for free to help.

    Some advice. You have posted walls of text that are hard to read. Please take the time to help us by putting in some paragraphs, and correct the formatting errors. That way people might take the time to read it and comment on where it could be improved.

    You have been advised to edit your posts to remove information about who parked. Not the plural. You need to check all your posts and amend them so that you only ever refer to The Driver and The Keeper.
    Last edited by Fruitcake; 12-08-2018 at 3:36 PM.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • Half_way
    • By Half_way 11th Aug 18, 10:45 AM
    • 4,390 Posts
    • 6,236 Thanks
    Half_way
    Have you seen NHS patient, visitor and staff car parking principles?

    Perhaps 'facilities management' need reminding of this:
    Originally posted by KeithP



    No I haven't seen that before but definitely looks great and worth a mention. Thanks

    Do as above.
    POPLA is not binding on the motorist, also even if the POLA process has started, or gone the wrong way, the principal ( ie the NHS trust) can still cancel/instruct its agents to cancel any parking charge, even if the parking company has initiated court proceedings.


    One thing I would recommend is that anything you intend to send to the NHS trust be posted on here first, so that more people can see it and offer advice, as the right things will need to be said to the right people
    From the Plain Language Commission:

    "The BPA has surely become one of the most socially dangerous organisations in the UK"
    • sbhullar
    • By sbhullar 11th Aug 18, 2:14 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    sbhullar
    OP, why are you having a go at Umkomaas? He made a ribald comment about a post where you suggested people came here to ask YOU for help about your appeal.

    Your comment was obviously a mistake but you decided then to berate an experienced and well respected poster who has given up their own time for free to help.
    Originally posted by Fruitcake


    I don't think Ukomaas appreciates this forum is for first time users. His judgmental comments earlier which you have chosen to ignore have the same berating impact factor you allude to. Treat people how you want to be treated/ speak to people how you would like to be spoken! I just didn't appreciate his condescending, negative vibe. Nice of you to stick up for him though.



    Thanks for the latter half of your message though Fruit Cake- I think I have corrected the driver/ keeper issue.
    • sbhullar
    • By sbhullar 11th Aug 18, 2:28 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    sbhullar
    Do as above.
    POPLA is not binding on the motorist, also even if the POLA process has started, or gone the wrong way, the principal ( ie the NHS trust) can still cancel/instruct its agents to cancel any parking charge, even if the parking company has initiated court proceedings.


    One thing I would recommend is that anything you intend to send to the NHS trust be posted on here first, so that more people can see it and offer advice, as the right things will need to be said to the right people
    Originally posted by Half_way

    Would you recommend perhaps writing to the Chief Executive or Car Parking office?
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

3,239Posts Today

7,555Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @SMinihane87: @MartinSLewis After she received the title she addressed it in literally the first episode of the next season of the appre?

  • RT @WhichUK: ??CHRISTMAS WARNING TO PARENTS?? Don't buy any of these slimes for your kids ? they all contain potentially unsafe levels of?

  • Today's Twitter poll: On Brexit, which is more important to you right now certainty or outcome. Ie would you prefe? https://t.co/En38QfRh3o

  • Follow Martin