TPS PCN Pilgrim Hospital, Boston, Lincolnshire

[ericsbrother]

when you appeal it costs the parking co money so do appeal.

 

 

Losing wont affect the legitimacy of your continued refusal to pay up afterwards, POPLA do not consider most matters of law.

 

Dont forget to ask to see the contract between the landlord and the parking co that assigns the right to make claims in their own name.

 

 

POPLA's usual response is to say they have seen the contract and it is valid when often it is not but do ask, you may want to use it against them at some point in the future

[Binkyboy60]

Hi Guys

 

It's been a while but the POPLA appeal has been lodged and TPS have uploaded their 'evidence'.

 

I have just about stopped laughing as all of their 'evidence' is from Lincoln Hospital rather than Boston!

 

They have uploaded 4 site maps of Lincoln showing the location of various signs as well as the entrance sign to Lincoln Hospital.

 

Their appeal document contains the following quote where it seems the writer is starting to throw their toys out of the pram

 

- "The appellant states that the entrance sign did not conform to the BPA code

well it has as we have mentioned before all our sign are approved by BPA,

also our entrance sign do state terms and conditions do apply"

- No evidence to show that BPA have approved their signage though!

 

do I just say that non of the evidence is relevant as it refers to a different hospital and location?

I'd like to say that they are a bunch of idiots but i don't think that would help!!

Edited May 10, 2017 by Binkyboy60
missed out quotation marks

[DragonFly1967]

I'd be tempted to respond to their 'evidence' thus...

 

 

The operator has had ample opportunity to gather their evidence and submit same to POPLA so that POPLA can properly adjudicate on this matter. I note with some interest that the operator has uploaded detailed maps showing the location of various signs as well as the entrance sign.

 

Unfortunately, the operator has submitted as evidence, maps and signage from a completely different site that has absolutely no relevance in the matter that is being appealed to POPLA.

 

The operator has submitted maps and signage from LINCOLN hospital, whereas the alleged parking event that the operator is claiming that I am liable for (as the recorded keeper) was at BOSTON hospital, which even by the quickest possible vehicle route is over an hour away from Lincoln hospital.

 

I therefore submit that the operators evidence is not only flawed, it is irrelevant and shows that they are unable to even get the basic matters correct and completely undermines any other evidence that they can or can hope to produce.

 

I request that the adjudicator find against the operator in this matter as they have failed to produce any evidence.

[Binkyboy60]

Very eloquently put DragonFly1967

Thanks

[ericsbrother]

concur.

Print off their evidence for hitting them with should POPLA think you can read signs from a distance of 36 miles.

If it was possible to resolve the letters on the signage at that distance the the signs would have to be at least 1800m tall. The CAA would have to approve those as well as the local council

[Binkyboy60]

Yeh, I've already done that!

[Binkyboy60]

Hi Guys

The POPLA 'independent' decision is in and the appeal has been rejected.

 

 

They have totally ignored the fact that the evidence is from a different hospital and have taken the photos of being parked in 2 bays and signage from Lincoln as the evidence.

 

 

So, bring on the debt collector's letters!!

[DragonFly1967]

That is absolutely ridiculous!

 

Did you happen to get copies of their so called 'evidence'?

[Binkyboy60]

Yes

First thing I did - just as well because once you submit your comments on the operator's 'evidence' it becomes unavailable to you!

Cannot believe POPLA just didn't take any notice that the signage was from Lincoln - how can that be???

 

And... no comeback to POPLA.....

[ericsbrother]

what exactly did POPLA say- post up their letter?

Also, ombudsman services Ltd have a twitter account. parhaps you should consider opening an account yourself just to show them up.

[Binkyboy60]

Hi

Here is the text from POPLA site

Assessor summary of operator case

The appellant failed to park wholly within the markings of a bay/space.

 

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant states the signage did not offer a contract.

The appellant states the entrance sign does not comply with Appendix B of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.

The appellant states the operator has failed to comply with Section 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice.

The appellant states the operator did not advise him correctly of the discounted amount.

 

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The terms and conditions of the site state

“All vehicles are required to park within a designated parking space.

By failing to comply with the terms and conditions of use,

you agree to pay a Parking Charge Notice of £60”.

 

 

The operator has issued a £60 Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to the appellant failing to park wholly within the markings of a bay/space.

 

 

The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle parked on site.

The evidence provided illustrates that the appellant failed to park wholly within the markings of a bay/space.

The appellant states the signage did not offer a contract.

 

 

I note the appellant’s comments and can see from his evidence that he is referring to the section of the sign that warns motorists that they leave their vehicle on site at their own risk.

 

 

This is irrelevant as this is informing motorists that if their vehicle is stolen or damaged they cannot claim from the parking operator.

 

 

After reviewing the evidence provided by the operator of the signage I am satisfied that the signage is clear and informs motorists that they must park in a bay; and if they decide to remain on site without complying they will be issued with a £60 PCN.

 

 

This is offering a contract to the motorists as they can leave the site within a reasonable time if they do not agree and do not want to enter into the contractual agreement.

 

 

The appellant states the entrance sign does not comply with Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice. Appendix B states

“You must always mention that terms and conditions apply and say where to find more details about them”

 

 

The operator has provided photographic evidence of the entrance sign on site which states

“Pay and Display Pay on Fee.

See notices in car park for details.

 

 

From this,

I am satisfied that the signage complies with Appendix B and informs motorists that there is terms and conditions on site.

 

 

The appellant states the operator has failed to comply with Section 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice.

 

 

Section 13.4 states

“You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action”.

 

 

This grace period would apply to appeals where the PCN was issued for payment issues.

As the appellant remained parked on site not within the markings of a bay/space he failed to comply with the terms and conditions.

 

 

The operator allowed an eight minute grace period for the appellant to return back to his vehicle to park correctly within a bay however, he did not therefore a PCN was issued.

 

 

I do not feel that a grace period would need to be granted in this instance as the appellant would not need to leave his vehicle unattended on site to park within the markings of a bay/space.

 

 

Realistically he would not need to leave his vehicle to ensure that this was complied with.

The appellant states the operator did not advise him correctly of the discounted amount.

 

 

I appreciate the appellant’s comments however, when assessing appeals, POPLA look at whether a parking contract was formed, and if so, whether the terms of the contract were complied with.

 

 

POPLA do not become involved in payment issues as this would not have affected the parking on the day in question.

The appellant will need to direct this back to the operator.

 

 

Based upon the evidence provided,

I can see that the appellant remained on site therefore, agreeing to comply with the terms and conditions.

 

 

I am satisfied that the signage clearly informs motorists that they must park within the markings of a bay/space As the appellant remained on site without parking in the markings of a bay/space, he has failed to comply with the terms and conditions.

As such, the PCN was issued correctly.

 

But the signs were from Lincoln!!!!

[DragonFly1967]

Well, ultimately, TPS no have to take you to court to ever hope of getting any money out of you, and a judge will look at all of the evidence. The POPLA decision is only binding on the parking company

 

No doubt you'll now get the usual barrage of junk mail/begging letters from DCA's (ignore them but keep them) but I wouldn't worry about it until a letter before action arrives.

[Binkyboy60]

Thanks, am expecting to collect some interesting letters

[citizenB]

There has been some problems with the Parking barriers at Pilgrim for the last couple of weeks and NO ONE has had to pay for parking.

[Binkyboy60]

Hi Guys

Just come back from holiday to find this document waiting for me. It looks, as expected, that this is a begging letter from a debt collection company who also claim to be solicitors. My research shows them as a No Win No Fee Debt Collection service. Safe to assume ignore it?

 

Regards

 

Hi

Here's the back of the letter as well

Debt Collector Front.pdf

Debt Collector Back.pdf

[dx100uk]

yep

just never ignore a claimform from the COURTS

[Binkyboy60]

OK thanks

[ericsbrother]

I love the letter is headed "losers v binkyboy" to make it look like it is a foregone conclusion that they are the boys who will be taking you to court.

 

The even better news is IE Legal are to be dissolved tomorrow to avoid a compulsory striking off!

If you paid them it would be money down a black hole but it might be worth baiting TPS over this if you have the time.

 

I E Legal Solicitors ltd are still going but as they are the same husband and wife team are they really the sort of people you would lend a fiver to you should ask.

 

In short, not even in the champions league of rentathreats let alone premier division.

[Binkyboy60]

Ha ha - so that's why they wanted payment by 4pm tomorrow!!!