@argoshelpers UKPC Parking Charge When Collecting Heavy Argos Purchase

[renegadeimp]

Doesnt matter what UKPC say. You dont have to pay a penny and they will say ANYTHING to get you to give them money.

[armadillo71]

Good Evening,

I've just received an email from POPLA which says it's for information only. It's 35 pages long, and consists of the information I've given them and the information the parking company have given them. The parking company are saying that Argos had no right to tell me to park behind the shop, as they do not own the land. they also go on to quote all sorts of things ...... cases which have been taken to court where it's been decided that it is ok to charge the amounts .. and on and on. Most of it is in a 'law lingo', which is totally alien to me. It's about time they were made to use language that people can understand.

I'm going to assume that I don't have to do anything at this point. I'll await the conclusion.

If I get made to pay .... then I will be on the tail of Argos ....... the mood I'm in at the minute, I'm going to hang draw and quarter them. How dare they say it is alright to park somewhere where they have no authority over!

Anyway ..... just thought I'd let you know where I'm at ..... :o)

 

 

Kind regards,

 

 

Julie

 

 

 

 

That is the evidence from the PPC to POPLA. When is your POPLA appeal due to be heard?

 

 

It feels even worse when you get the evidence pack posted through the letter box!! THUD!

 

 

POPLA is binding on the PPC, not you.

 

 

I think you will be alright though, chill....

[Beesnees]

It's just so much bluff, bluster, eye-wash and sabre-rattling. Anything but the truth, & calculated to scare or beat you into submission - hence the legalese.

[silverfox1961]

I have to agree with all of the above. They are trying to blind you with legal guff.

 

All PPCs have won cases but they don't say whether the cases were default judgements or whether they were defended. If POPLA reject your representations, the appeal judgement can still be ignored as it is then the PPCs duty to either forget it or take court action. A fully defended case is more likely to succeed than not.

[CurlyMops]

Thank you all for your replies ..... I've not been told when the appeal is likely to take place.

I'll let you know when I next hear anything.

Thank you all once again for your support,

Kind regards,

Julie

[JoeyJoeC]

I have to agree with all of the above. They are trying to blind you with legal guff.

 

All PPCs have won cases but they don't say whether the cases were default judgements or whether they were defended. If POPLA reject your representations, the appeal judgement can still be ignored as it is then the PPCs duty to either forget it or take court action. A fully defended case is more likely to succeed than not.

 

Not to mention the amount they have lost!! They won't tell anyone about that.

[Billy's mate]

Thanks for the update Julie, you're getting there. Keep us up to date with how it's going. We're all behind you.

[ericsbrother]

Dont worry, the adjudicators at POPLA are not stupid, they know all about the court case mentioned by UKPC and they also know that it is contemt of court to use the argument of case law without mentioning the fact that the matter is in front of the Supreme Court as we sit here.

Now the Argos staff are agents of the landlord and have the same rights as the parking co so we will call that one quits as the parking co cant tell Argos what to do. End result? They cannot prove their claim.

I'm sure that POPLA will give you the same result even if they look at the arguments differently.

[CurlyMops]

Well, after all this time, I've been sent an email from POPLA ...... here is a copy of it ....

 

"As you may be aware, a case concerning parking on private land, ParkingEye Limited -v- Beavis, has now been heard by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. However, a decision is not expected for some time.

Where either party has requested an adjournment or where it appears to the Assessor that a POPLA appeal raises the same issue as in the above case, and there is no other ground upon which the appeal can be determined, the matter will be adjourned.

Accordingly, your appeal is adjourned to a provisional date for determination of Monday 9 November 2015.

In the meantime, no enforcement action can proceed once a case is registered at POPLA, before the POPLA appeal is determined. Further, there is absolutely no requirement to pay any sort of ‘administration charge’ to the operator, in order for the case to be taken out of the list.

You should be contacted again after the decision of the Supreme Court is handed down.

Yours sincerely"

 

I had no idea that the case had been adjourned ..... but anyway ... it would appear that the parking company must have adjourned it, but nobody thought it might have shown courtesy to let me know ..... never mind.

 

So I'm assuming that they think that the outcome to the court case will mean that they have more chance of winning ...... ...... never mind that this has been on going since March, causing untold stress.

 

Sigh ... anyway .... thought I'd let you know about the update ... if they keep this up, i'll have died of old age by the time it's sorted ....... Oh Joy!!! Would I love to see their faces then! (Apologies for sick sense of humour)

[DragonFly1967]

Don't hold your breath about being contacted by POPLA once the Beavis result is known.

 

I can't imagine that the old POPLA will be too interested in adjudicating on a case when they've a) lost the contract and b) are owed over £100k by the BPA.

 

I don't think that any of the old cases are being passed over to the new POPLA contract holders either.

 

 

So, as no 'enfarcement' action can take place until your case is decided by POPLA (the old lot) who have let most of the staff move on to pastures new, I'd not worry about it to be honest, as it's more than likely that the file is just going to sit in a (metaphorical) in tray, gathering dust.

[CurlyMops]

??? Oh ...... I had no idea that all these changes were being made ...... I'm really shocked!

[ericsbrother]

If you get any further correspondence from UKPC refer them to POPLA. They wont want to be upsetting them too much

[CurlyMops]

Well, it's a year down the line.

I'd hoped that this was all forgotten, but oh no, it's come back to haunt me!

 

I've received a letter from solicitors,

saying that they have been appointed by BPA to act as an independent appeals body.

 

I thought it might be a hoax, I mean who in their right mind, would call solicitors 'Wright Hassall' ???????!!!!!

 

they're giving me just 7 days to submit any new information.

I've got no way of checking if the information they're using is correct,

and I felt like the tone of the letter, is FAR FROM being independent.

 

I am so sick and tired of this, I feel like they've already won.

If I have to pay just one penny, then I'm going to go after Argos with everything

I've got to get THEM to compensate me for all the stress that this has caused over the last year.

 

To say I'm livid is an under statement! (Apologies for the rant, but I received the letter today and haven't calmed down yet!)

Thanking you for any advice you may have to offer,

 

With kind regards,

 

CurlyMops

[dx100uk]

wright hassle are in this instance operating as a no powers DCA

 

 

safe to ignore

 

 

dx

[armadillo71]

wright hassle are in this instance operating as a no powers DCA

 

 

safe to ignore

 

 

dx

 

 

No dx, this is Wright Hassle hearing the stayed cases at POPLA due to Beavis/PE.

 

 

See the Prankster;

 

 

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/wright-hassall-begin-to-hear-stayed.html

[CurlyMops]

I'm confused.

 

I've been trying to find out information,

and I've read that Right Hassle have indeed taken over POPLA,

even though as a firm of solicitors, they are well known for chasing debts,

and being in the pockets of parking companies.

 

They can't possibly be 'independent'.

 

From the way the letter reads, they are going to be the ones who decide if I have to pay the fine or not.

 

The letter isn't asking me for money,

 

it's telling me that they will assess my appeal based on the evidence they have before them.

[dx100uk]

seems like its time to play along then.

 

 

oh and don't forget

 

 

its NOT A FINE!

[Beesnees]

Curlymops, why are you allowing them to get to you in this way again?

 

You're playing right into their 'problem my' little hands by giving them any credence.

 

Have you read Prankster's advice linked for you above by armadillo?

 

If not, take a few deep breaths, read, digest, follow advice, then.................relax.

 

That's an order private.

[silverfox1961]

Just to be clear, Wright Hassall haven't taken over from POPLA, they are acting as the 'independant' appeals service and as far as I can tell, they are adjudicating on the stayed cases only.

 

How independant they really are based on their actions in court cases will remain to be seen.

 

I happen to think it was a stupid idea from POPLA to hand over these cases to a solicitor who has a vested interest in pursuing court cases against a motorist

[ericsbrother]

read the parking prankster's latest blogs on this topic,

his April blog has a case where Wright Hassal are the solicitor acting for a parking co

that cant use a map to work out where they have a car park agreement

and then the appalling letter they sent out utterly misunderstanding

and misquoting the law they are supposed to interpret.

 

Compulsory reading for anyone with a stayed case.

[Beesnees]

Aside from which,

the timing of their letter,

the contrived 'deadline' apparently pulled out of thin air, etc.,

 

all stink of 'trying it on to see if we can panic those poor saps into coughing up'.

 

What else would you expect from a firm of solrs possessed of morals that would shame a polecat?

And that name has just gotta be a belated April fool's, no?

 

But more seriously,

what does it say of POPLA's ostensible independence if they think this is a viable way to proceed?

 

By rights, this should leave them wide open to the charge of dereliction of their statutory duties.

Shame on them.

[ericsbrother]

the new POPLA appeals service seems to fail to send copies of all the parking co evidence to the appellant,

including copies of the assignment from the landowner to make claims in their own name etc.

This is not justice as there is no equality of arms and never can be like that.

[CurlyMops]

Well, here I am again, with yet another update regarding my parking outside the rear of Argos 17 months ago.

 

Today I received an email from Wright Hassall solicitors (POPLA)

My appeal has been rejected, and it is their final decision.

 

 

Copy of email ......

 

"We have been appointed by the British Parking Association (“BPA”) to act as an independent appeals body,

under the brand of Parking on Private Land Appeals (“POPLA”), in respect of the Appeal and to consider

both the Appellants and the Car Park Operator’s positions before providing a decision to the parties. We are

not instructed to act on behalf of either party.

 

We confirm that we have considered the appeal, taking into account all of the evidence at hand and applying

the prevailing legislation and with reference to the BPA Code of Practice, and have decided to reject the

Appeal on this occasion.

 

 

To avoid further action, including Court action, the Appellant can make payment to

the Car Park Operator in the next 28 days.

The Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) will not be cancelled.

 

Reasons for dismissing the Appeal

 

• The Appellant stated in the Appeal that the amount of the parking charge is unreasonable. Pursuant

to the guidance set out in the Supreme Court’s decision in ParkingEye v Beavis and in accordance

with the BPA Code of Practice, a reasonable charge would be £100.00. As the charge the Car Park

Operator has imposed is equal to or less than £100.00, we have no option but to reject the Appeal.

 

• The Appellant stated that they were a customer of Argos at the time of the contravention, however

the signs clearly state “a valid parking permit must be clearly displayed at all times” the appellant did

not display a permit and was therefore in breach of the Terms and Conditions of the car park.

Accordingly, the Appeal is rejected.

 

To the Appellant

 

To avoid further action, including Court action,

the Appellant can make payment to the Car Park Operator in the next 28 days.

The Parking Charge Notice will not be cancelled.

 

To the Car Park Operator

 

As the Appeal has been rejected, you must allow the Appellant 28 days to make payment.

If payment is not forthcoming, you may take further action to recover the PCN.

 

This is the final decision in this Appeal.

 

 

We are not able to respond to any future correspondence from either party,

nor are we able to provide any information to either party over the telephone.

 

Yours faithfully"

 

I can't begin to say how angry I am by it all.

 

 

I'm particularly angry at Argos,

whose fault it was in the first place,

to give me permission to park there,

when in fact they had no right to do that.

 

if anyone can offer me any help as to what I need to do next,

then I would be very grateful. T

 

 

he last thing I feel like doing right now,

is paying them a single penny,

and this whole business really sits in my craw.

 

 

It's not just for me,

its for all those other people who have been 'had' in the same way.

 

 

I'm not going to give in quietly, that's for sure!

 

With kind regards,

 

Julie :o)

[silverfox1961]

As this is the first response I have seen from WH, as suspected, they have no interest in the motorist, only the PPCs

 

The Beavis case was totally different to this car park. I would bet that UKPC didn't pay an up front fee to Argos to manage their land as Parking Eye did. It is more likely they have a revenue sharing system in place so the statement made by them is misleading.

 

As the signs say a permit must be displayed and you didn't have a permit, in my opinion, this can only be trespass and as such, the landowner should be the only one to take action.

 

Just because an appeal has been rejected (on flawed grounds IMO) does not mean you must pay. UKPC will have to go to court and make their case on the balance of probabilities that they are correct. A lot of judges have seen through this ploy and use the law as it was meant to be.

 

I would also be writing to POPLA and inform them of WH's biased decision.

[CurlyMops]

Thank you for your reply.

 

I've just been through the paperwork, and notice that I spoke on line to 'Argos'. I

 

 

spoke to Dominic, who said that it was nothing to do with Argos,

and that the land is not owned by Argos.

I should "sort it out with UKPC".

 

 

If that is the case, then that's fair enough,

BUT, they should not be printing their receipts with the advice that you can park on land which they do not own.

If they hadn't told me that it was ok, then I would NEVER have parked there,

and would have taken notice of the signs on the walls.

 

 

I can't begin to imagine how much money has been made from this, and feel that it needs to stop.

 

I'll wait for the call to go to Court.

Thank you for your support. Much appreciated,

Regards,

Julie