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
    • ppsigning
    • By ppsigning 12th Apr 18, 5:04 PM
    • 29Posts
    • 6Thanks
    ppsigning
    Advise on appeal wording for bad signing
    • #1
    • 12th Apr 18, 5:04 PM
    Advise on appeal wording for bad signing 12th Apr 18 at 5:04 PM
    Hi,

    The driver for this vehicle overstayed the signed stay time, kind of. The signage that contained the more specific terms on the car park stated a time.

    However a more prominent sign, evidence available, stated a different time through graffiti. At a normal viewing distance it would appear that the stay is indeed a different number causing confusion. Surely it is up to the agency to keep these signs in perfect condition as to not cause these types of issues.

    How would you mention this within the appeal?

    This is a BPA agency.
Page 2
    • ppsigning
    • By ppsigning 11th May 18, 9:13 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    ppsigning
    Any critique of it at all? Anything else to add?


    Wanna smash this at POPLA.


    How is my section on grafitti?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th May 18, 9:41 PM
    • 61,745 Posts
    • 74,655 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BOTKiSHLswx8Mh3FCAdcdrm9uKy5P_Wf/view

    Get rid of the paragraph:

    ''BPA Code of Practice (36.1a)...inappropriately''

    ...which has no place in the point made about ICO and it actually annoyed me that someone ruined it by putting that bit in, and people like you are copying it.

    That bit talks about something that all NTKs do have on them (complaining to the ICO) sending POPLA off in a wrong direction and possibly ruining the appeal point. So get rid of that little bit.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • ppsigning
    • By ppsigning 11th May 18, 10:13 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    ppsigning
    Done and done.


    That section is removed.


    I think I just need a final proof read and hopefully it'll be good to go!


    To be fair I'm feeling fairly confident just on their lack of fine displaying in obvious text.



    Because the their signs are a bit.. yeah
    • ppsigning
    • By ppsigning 13th May 18, 6:51 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    ppsigning
    drive.google.com/file/d/1VTvQkTKz0AIVtflPN6Nyiv_rUahR8Uf_/view?usp=sharing

    Okay last bit of changes for formatting and fixing all of the above corrections you guys have pointed out.

    Will be sending this off tonight, anything else that needs changing? made more specific to my case? or any other points worth throwing in?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th May 18, 11:03 PM
    • 61,745 Posts
    • 74,655 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Looks good to go; just a typo of ANPR in the final appeal point.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • Le_Kirk
    • By Le_Kirk 14th May 18, 9:32 AM
    • 3,207 Posts
    • 2,127 Thanks
    Le_Kirk
    Here is your live link: -


    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VTvQkTKz0AIVtflPN6Nyiv_rUahR8Uf_/view
    • ppsigning
    • By ppsigning 14th May 18, 10:13 AM
    • 29 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    ppsigning
    Hey guys, last post for a while till the rebuttal.



    When sending to POPLA I'm going under the option of


    I was not parked incorrectly -> Other


    And only other correct?


    Then I do not state the motorist? Correct?



    Should I only upload the appeal?


    Or should I also upload my original rejection? The figures I'm using in their own upload?


    Thanks so much!
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 14th May 18, 12:53 PM
    • 9,298 Posts
    • 9,577 Thanks
    KeithP
    Why would you want to say "I was not parked correctly"?
    Doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

    Use 'other', as it says in the NEWBIES thread.

    No need to send your original appeal or it's rejection letter. Leave the PPC to fight their own battle.
    .
    • ppsigning
    • By ppsigning 14th May 18, 1:03 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    ppsigning
    Yes but if you follow the link on newbies thread the guy says click on that and THEN other.


    Just wanted to clarify, as I saw it mentioned in a few other threads too.
    • ppsigning
    • By ppsigning 14th May 18, 2:59 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    ppsigning
    Also it was "I was not parked INcorrectly"


    As in was parked correctly.



    Basically... Is it


    I was not parked incorrectly > other


    Or just


    Other
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th May 18, 3:30 PM
    • 61,745 Posts
    • 74,655 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yes but if you follow the link on newbies thread the guy says click on that and THEN other.
    Originally posted by ppsigning
    I'm a lady, and I do NOT say to click on 'I was not parked incorrectly'!

    When we say click on OTHER, we mean click on the option called OTHER.

    Obviously you don't click on something using the words ''I'' and ''parked'' in the same sentence!
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • ppsigning
    • By ppsigning 4th Jun 18, 5:47 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    ppsigning
    Just thought i'd pop in to say that at the moment they JUST submitted their evidence against me and it is INCREDIBLY weak.


    It's basically just pictures of all of the signs at the location, pdf copies of my appeal to them and the letters they sent me.


    and then just this:


    ANPR Overstay The Terms and Conditions of parking at this location are clearly displayed at the entrance and throughout the car park. It is the vehicle driver responsibility to ensure that when parking on private property they do so in accordance with the Terms and Conditions in force at the particular location. The vehicle in question was observed by our Automatic Number Plate Recognition system for parking longer period than allowed which was in contravention of the car parks Terms and Conditions of use. The signage have been approved by the BPA and fully comply with the code of practice. Entrance signs states that there is parking conditions in place and to refer to the terms and conditions inside the car park for full details. It is the driver responsibility to do so. We duly enclose a witness statement from the landlord. Had the appellant paid attention to the notice to keeper received he would clearly see that the notice not only refers to the amount of time the vehicle was recorded on site, but what the maximum stay at the location is. The notice to keeper fully complies with POFA 2012. The signage makes reference that the site operates ANPR and that the site is monitored 24 hour a day.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 4th Jun 18, 7:22 PM
    • 19,492 Posts
    • 30,841 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Had the appellant paid attention to the notice to keeper received he would clearly see that the notice not only refers to the amount of time the vehicle was recorded on site, but what the maximum stay at the location is.
    The NtK is irrelevant to the parking contract. Do the signs differentiate 'time on site' and 'maximum stay'? Do the signs specifically use those terms or do they talk about 'maximum parking times'. Exploit this in your rebuttal if appropriate.
    The fact that I have commented on your thread does not mean I have become your personal adviser. A long list of subsequent questions addressed for my personal attention is unlikely to receive a reply.
    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.
    • ppsigning
    • By ppsigning 4th Jun 18, 8:58 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    ppsigning
    The exact wording on the signs is also "Maximum stay"


    I will definitely be stating that the NtK is irrelevant in the matter however, and that they didn't address the points about illegible fine amount whatso ever and instead just went "yes we comply with the CoP".



    Also I find it funny how they stated they have included a witness statement from the landlord, except they didn't....
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 4th Jun 18, 9:09 PM
    • 19,492 Posts
    • 30,841 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Also I find it funny how they stated they have included a witness statement from the landlord, except they didn't....
    Hit them hard on this. Do not let POPLA make a decision if they've received a copy and you haven't.

    POPLA seem to accept any old crappy Witness Statement, even from lowly customer services personnel.
    The fact that I have commented on your thread does not mean I have become your personal adviser. A long list of subsequent questions addressed for my personal attention is unlikely to receive a reply.
    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.
    • ppsigning
    • By ppsigning 5th Jun 18, 9:52 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    ppsigning
    This is what i've got at the moment, very quick draft



    Dear POPLA assessor,

    I shall respond to TPS!!!8217; evidence pack similarly to how they have laid it out.

    !!!8220;The Terms and Conditions of parking at this location are clearly displayed at the entrance and throughout the car park. It is the vehicle driver responsibility to ensure that when parking on private property they do so in accordance with the Terms and Conditions in force at the particular location. The vehicle in question was observed by our Automatic Number Plate Recognition system for parking longer period than allowed which was in contravention of the car parks Terms and Conditions of use.!!!8221;

    The signage have been approved by the BPA and fully comply with the code of practice.

    TPS have failed to mention the relevance of POPLA Schedule 4 which specifically required !!!8216;adequate notice of the parking charge!!!8217;. I fail to see any evidence that BPA have specifically approved this sign as they themselves state that they must !!!8216;adequately bring the charges to the attention of the driver!!!8217; which small white font does not do.

    Entrance signs states that there is parking conditions in place and to refer to the terms and conditions inside the car park for full details. It is the driver responsibility to do so.

    Full details whcih would expand on the maximum stay, which, on the day of the drivers visit stated 3 hours maximum due to graffiti. It is TPS!!!8217; responsibility to maintain the signs, which they failed to do.

    We duly enclose a witness statement from the landlord.

    Within the POPA portal there is NO witness statement from anybody. TPS have failed to prove that they have landowner authority by not including any statement or evidence that is visible to myself.

    Had the appellant paid attention to the notice to keeper received he would clearly see that the notice not only refers to the amount of time the vehicle was recorded on site, but what the maximum stay at the location is. The notice to keeper fully complies with POFA 2012.

    The notice does not prove the amount of time the vehicle was recorded on site, the notice merely stated times that the vehicle entered and left the site. TPS have not provided POPLA with any evidence that the vehicle actually parked on the land, nor did the Notice to Keepers as shown in their evidence pack ever state !!!8220;period of parking!!!8221; and as explained TPS can not substitute !!!8220;stay at location!!!8221; in place of the POFA required !!!8220;period of parking!!!8221;.

    The signage makes reference that the site operates ANPR and that the site is monitored 24 hour a day.
    Making reference to ANPR does not mean they have fully complied with ICO Code of Practice and TPS have no evidence to show that they have complied. They made no attempt to prove that they fully complied with ICO CoP. The evidence pack contains recently added plaques that were installed due to the recent law coming in with regards to data privacy, GDPR. You can see in my original appeal that it was not on the entrance sign, nor anywhere else on the land, at the relevant time of this appeal.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 5th Jun 18, 10:04 PM
    • 9,298 Posts
    • 9,577 Thanks
    KeithP
    Don't get too carried away Ppsigning.

    You only have space for 2000 characters for the PoPLA rebuttal and your draft is currently around 3000.
    .
    • ppsigning
    • By ppsigning 6th Jun 18, 8:04 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    ppsigning
    How's this for a sub 2k comments?


    Dear POPLA assessor,

    I shall respond to TPS!!!8217; evidence pack similarly to how they have laid it out.

    1. TPS have failed to mention the relevance of POPLA Sch. 4 which specifically required !!!8216;adequate notice of the parking charge!!!8217;. BPA also state that they must !!!8216;adequately bring the charges to the attention of the driver!!!8217; which the small white font used on their notices does not do.

    2. Full details of conditions which would expand on the maximum stay which, on the day of the drivers visit, stated 3 hours maximum due to graffiti. It is TPS!!!8217; responsibility to maintain the signs, which they failed to do.


    3. Within the POPLA portal there is NO witness statement uploaded. TPS have failed to prove that they have landowner authority by not including any statement or evidence that is visible to myself on the portal. Thus it should be assumed they have no authority to operate.


    4. The notice does not prove the amount of time the vehicle was parked on site it stated times that the vehicle entered and left the site. TPS have not provided POPLA with any evidence that the vehicle actually parked on the land, nor did the Notice to Keepers as shown in their evidence pack ever state !!!8220;period of parking!!!8221;


    5. Making reference to ANPR does not mean they have fully complied with ICO CoP and TPS have no evidence to show that they have complied. The evidence pack contains recently added plaques that you can see in my original appeal were not on the entrance sign, nor anywhere else on the land, at the relevant time of this appeal.


    TPS failed to refute any of my appeal points and their evidence was thin and lacking.
    Last edited by ppsigning; 06-06-2018 at 8:30 PM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 8th Jun 18, 2:22 AM
    • 61,745 Posts
    • 74,655 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    POPLA Sch. 4
    should be:

    POFA Sch. 4
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • ppsigning
    • By ppsigning 23rd Jun 18, 10:16 AM
    • 29 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    ppsigning
    Thanks for all the help so far guys.


    Someone from POPLA has picked the case up, i couldn't see them in the POPLA Decisions however, they have emailed to send over the missing files from the POPLA portal including a witness statement from a "Estates Surveyor" for the retail company on the car park.



    They also asked if I would like to add any more comments via email response.



    What should I send back to them? Anything?



    I've said all i can think of so far as in main appeal and the comments I left on the evidence pack, albeit now they actually HAVE a witness statement.
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

1,011Posts Today

6,634Users online

Martin's Twitter