Show Posts - saozgirl03

Once again you are 1000000000% correct b789  Received the cancellation letter from APCOA today.Thanks all over again for your advice, yet another one bites the dust!Until next time which I keep my fingers crossed won't be any time soon.....keep up the fantastic work - you are all an amazing bunch of people 

Thanks b789 - I will sit tight until the rubbish comes in the post and will appeal it as per your post.Kind regards

Hi all - again!I seriously didn't think I would be back on the forum so fast but I guess the nature of the work means it's inevitable  There will be a pcn coming my way I'm sure because the auto pay account of the driver of the vehicle who dropped off in Stansted Airport failed due to a failed card payment (card fraud warranted a replacement card). The new debit card had not been updated on the auto pay account in time (they give you until midnight the following night to pay). So, I am asking for pre-advice....I can pay the parking amount now for the 14th August but the actual day that the driver went to Stansted was the 13th August or do I just sit it out and wait for the fine?Kind regards as always

Perfect, I shall look into both your suggestions and in regards to complaining to PPS and then BPA I will post any response back from them here out of interest for anyone who wants to know!Thank you all again - this forum is absolutely fantastic and keep up the amazing work you all do 

Hello all, just an update on the appeal and I have a huge thank you to send to everyone - especially to b789, your input was invaluable!!The appeal was successful and I no longer have to worry over it until 'inevitably' the next time some idiot gives 'the driver' another ticket.The grounds for allowing the appeal are below..."This decision relates to PCN:****** The operator is a member of the British Parking Association (BPA), which uses a code of practice detailing the standards that it needs to uphold as a part of its membership - the Private Parking Single Code of Practice. It is the operator’s responsibility to demonstrate to POPLA that they have issued the PCN correctly. I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: Within their grounds of appeal, the appellant states that as the area does not permit parking at any time, no contract or agreement can be entered into as it fails the contractual basic test with no offer and no consideration, resulting in no contract. The signage on site states that no parking at any time is permitted and failure to comply would result in a £100 PCN. It must be recognised that the area in question does not permit motorists to park within the managed area as there are no parking facilities such as parking bays offered within this area. As parking is prohibited, I concur with the appellant that no parking contract could be entered into, and therefore the motorist would not have breached the terms of a contract that couldn’t be entered into. Accordingly, I allow this appeal. The appellant has raised other grounds in their appeal, but as I am allowing the appeal, it is not necessary for me to address these."Shame they wouldn't take the time to address the other 6 points raised in the appeal!Is there any other complaint that I could make against PPS for the scam they are running at Royal Victoria Docks? I would be more than happy to waste more of my time doing that...lol 

Lost for words bar one....AMAZING!Thank you, I will put this into the link POPLA have sent on their last email and keep my fingers crossed.TBC...

Thank you, I have found one that you drafted for someone not too long ago for the same parking operator.I've tweaked a few things here and there so this is now what I have drafted. I will be completely frank though...in regards to the first point - I've got no comprehension on that argument. Nor have I managed to get me head wrapped around the ins and outs of PoFA compliance. The email I received from POPLA giving me the chance to respond withing 7 days to PPS lies was dated 11th June so I believe that today is the last day for me to reply, which I am keen to do. I can see by the many, many other posts that you are all very, very busy people but I would (and am) extremely grateful for the time you all put in to help and seek that assistance again today so I can finalise all of this and send it to POPLA.Many thanks!Dear Assessor, In rebut to the evidence submitted by Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd, I would like to highlight various factual errors and bring to your attention several key points they have failed to address. Firstly, I have seen that the contract that Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd are relying on clearly states: “Leaseholders: Please provide a document or contract where states your authority over the site to be managed by us” As they have signed as the 'leaseholder', you must put Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd to strict poof that their client can show the document that gives them authority to authorise Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd to operate at the location. The copy of the agreement on its own does not evidence authority flowing from the landowner to the leaseholder to sign contracts in its own name. There has been no evidence supplied to prove that the land is not under statutory control or part of highways and therefore can not be deemed relevant land under PoFA. Secondly, Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd are relying on a contravention having occurred by the driver parking in a Taxi Rank marked with double red lines. “In the present case, the driver parked on a taxi rank marked with double red lines” You must put Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd to strict proof of this evidence as this is factually incorrect. The evidence supplied by Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd clearly shows the Private Hire Vehicle in a ‘Taxi drop off point only’ marked bay with double red lines.  Thirdly, Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd are relying on a contravention having occurred by a Private Hire Vehicle stopping on a red route. “Additionally, there are double red lines on the road, indicating that stopping, parking, loading/unloading or boarding and alighting from a vehicle is prohibited. While red routes are commonly associated with public roads managed by Transport for London (TfL), the rules regarding parking restrictions on red routes also apply when such markings and signage are present on private land.” “In the present case, an exception is provided for taxis” You must put Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd to clarify this statement as it is factually incorrect. It is not only London Black Taxi’s which are exempt from Transport for London parking restrictions. From December 17, 2007 Private Hire Vehicles in London were granted an exemption for red routes. To quote Section 6 of Transport for London's Private Hire Vehicle Drivers Handbook V1 – Parking and Driving in London: “Stopping and waiting - Private hire drivers can stop to pick up or drop off passengers in many areas where there are rules in place to limit waiting or stopping.  You can pick up or drop off passengers:  On single and double red lines  On single and double yellow lines  In places where loading is not allowed (shown by markings on the kerb)  In most parking bays In most bus lanes, although you should avoid this if possible as it might delay or obstruct buses.” Fourthly, Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd are relying on the driver being parked in the Taxi Rank (contradictory evidence see point 1) as verification to waiver the 5 minute observation period. “the driver cannot benefit from the 5-minute consideration, as it does not apply in strictly no-parking areas.” You must put to Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd to differentiate the regulations between a bay marked ‘Taxi Rank’ and a bay marked ‘Taxi Drop off Point Only’ and clarify the minimum 5 minute consideration period observation between the two. I have only read their definition of the regulations regarding a ‘Taxi Rank’ which are immaterial to this case – as the driver did not park in a Taxi Rank. Fithly, the signage is prohibitory. The sign clearly states, “No parking, waiting, loading or unloading on the roads and footpaths at any time.” This is not an invitation to park under certain conditions. It is a clear prohibition. A contract cannot be formed from prohibitive terms as I explained in my original appeal. The case of PCM v Bull (2016) confirmed that a prohibitory notice cannot form the basis of a contractual agreement. The operator claims a contract was formed, but this contradicts the content of the signage and applicable case law. Sixthly, Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd failed to address point 5 in my appeal, “Set-down is Not Parking”. They are relying on their false statement that the Private Hire Vehicle had been parked in a Taxi Rank which is governed by strict rules. Their own photographic evidence contradicts this. Seventhly, Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd claims that because I did not name the driver, I have assumed liability. This is incorrect. The burden is on the operator to comply with all of the conditions in Schedule 4 of PoFA in order to transfer liability to the keeper. As shown above, they have failed to do so. There is no presumption that the keeper is the driver. VCS v Edward (2023) confirmed that a keeper cannot be held liable simply because they were not able to name the driver.  To conclude – Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd has unsuccessfully argued the points made in my appeal. The driver did not “choose to ignore the terms and remain on red route” they were not governed by the terms of the red route through dispensation from Transport for London. The driver did not park in a Taxi Rank, rather they set down a pre booked fare in the appropriate ‘Taxi drop off point only’ bay and were not given the minimum 5-minute observation grace period. Their signage is prohibitory and cannot support a claim based on contract law and Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd have not definitively proven that PoFA applies and is therefore non-compliant. Given the points and facts above, I urge you to allow the appeal and cancel the Parking Charge.

Thanks b789 - what you have quoted in your last post is what was sent to POPLA in my initial appeal. So my last post is what my response back to the evidence that PPS have submitted to my appeal to POPLA which I have 7 days (from June 11th) to respond to. So forgive me for my confusion but do I send this again to POPLA as my response to what PPS have written which was...."Dear Assessor,According to the documents provided by the landowner and uploaded for review, the land in question is private land. The contract that we are seeking payment on has arisen from a breach of the notified terms and conditions of parking stated on the signs that the landowner has requested us to erect and permitted to remain erected at this location. The evidence demonstrates that the signage is clearly located to make motorists aware of the terms and conditions, and the potential consequences of non-adherence to the terms have been made fully available. A prominent entrance sign, facing the oncoming traffic, makes clear that parking on red routes is not allowed (NO PARKING ON RED ROUTE) and refers users to further signs within the site. The signage states “Red Route. No parking at any time. This private land is controlled by Wardens. If you fail to comply with any of the terms and conditions stated below you agree to pay a £100 Parking Charge Notice. No parking/waiting/loading/unloading on red routes or pedestrian footpaths. By parking on this private land you agree to comply with these terms and conditions (the parking contract) and accept liability to pay the fee for unauthorised parking." Additionally, there are double red lines on the road, indicating that stopping, parking, loading/unloading or boarding and alighting from a vehicle is prohibited.  While red routes are commonly associated with public roads managed by Transport for London (TfL), the rules regarding parking restrictions on red routes also apply when such markings and signage are present on private land. In the present case, an exception is provided for taxis, which are known for their ability to be hailed on the street without pre-booking. These taxis are licensed by local councils or relevant authorities and must adhere to specific standards. London's traditional black cabs, although now available in other colours, are a prime example of this type of taxi.Private Hire Vehicles (PHVs), sometimes called "minicabs," must be booked in advance and cannot use taxi ranks. According to Transport for London (TfL) regulations, PHVs are not permitted to stop or park on taxi ranks at any time, even to pick up or drop off passengers. While taxis may be granted certain exemptions on private land or public roads, any exceptions for taxis do not extend to PHVs. PHV drivers need to be aware of these distinctions to ensure compliance with parking restrictions and avoid parking charges. In the present case, the driver parked on a taxi rank marked with double red lines, meaning that any other vehicle except a taxi is not permitted to park, wait or load/unload in the area; the driver cannot benefit from the 5-minute consideration, as it does not apply in strictly no-parking areas. By choosing to ignore the terms and remain on red route, the driver contravened the parking contract and became liable for a parking charge.It is important to note that the operator does not have to issue a notice directly to the driver of the vehicle, as it can hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. The evidence shows that the keeper was invited to identify the driver, but does not indicate that they provided us with the relevant information to transfer liability to the driver. By failing to provide the driver's details, the appellant has assumed liability for this PCN."or something along the lines of my previous post which was....To the Assessor, In rebut to the comments made by Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd, I would like to bring to your attention several points.  I have seen that the contract that Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd are relying on clearly states: “Leaseholders: Please provide a document or contract where states your authority over the site to be managed by us” As they have signed as the 'leaseholder', you must put Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd to strict poof that their client can show the document that gives them authority to authorise Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd to operate at the location. The copy of the agreement on its own does not evidence authority flowing from the landowner to the leaseholder to sign contracts in its own name.  Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd are relying on a contravention having occurred by the driver parking in a Taxi Rank marked with double red lines.    “In the present case, the driver parked on a taxi rank marked with double red lines” You must put Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd to strict proof of this evidence. The evidence supplied by Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd shows the Private Hire Vehicle in a ‘Taxi drop off point only’ marked bay with double red lines. A Taxi Rank is adjacent to where the driver set down see google map link https://www.google.com/maps/place/Excel+London/@51.5086088,0.0251321,3a,75y,92.82h,57.36t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sqmUE7TGjEvvq4Zt2eSONNw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D32.63670126946809%26panoid%3DqmUE7TGjEvvq4Zt2eSONNw%26yaw%3D92.8199944194477!7i16384!8i8192!4m6!3m5!1s0x47d8a80ce609e50d:0xa0de5f705d7aec7!8m2!3d51.5084601!4d0.029846!16zL20vMDR4ZG0w?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDYwOS4xIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D   Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd are relying on a contravention having occurred by a Private Hire Vehicle stopping on a red route.    “Additionally, there are double red lines on the road, indicating that stopping, parking,    loading/unloading or boarding and alighting from a vehicle is prohibited.  While red    routes are commonly associated with public roads managed by Transport for London (TfL), the rules regarding parking restrictions on red routes also apply when such markings and signage are present on private land.” “In the present case, an exception    is provided for taxis” You must put Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd to clarify this statement. It is not only London Black Taxi’s which are exempt from Transport for London parking restrictions. From December 17, 2007 Private Hire Vehicles in London were granted an exemption for red routes. To quote Section 6 of Transport for Londons Private Hire Vehicle Drivers Handbook V1 – Parking and Driving in London: Stopping and waiting - Private hire drivers can stop to pick up or drop off passengers in many areas where there are rules in place to limit waiting or stopping. You need to remember that: • PHV drivers should not stop in any place where they might stop other    vehicles moving or be a danger to other road users. • PHV drivers must not stop on zig-zaglines (for example, by pedestrian crossings, outside schools) You should check what signage is displayed about stopping or waiting and make sure you understand and follow the instructions: • You can pick up or drop off passengers: - On single and double red    lines - On single and double yellow lines - In places where loading is not allowed (shown by markings on the kerb) - In most parking bays - In most bus lanes, although you should avoid    this if possible as it might delay or obstruct buses.  Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd are relying on the driver being parked in the Taxi Rank (contradictory evidence see point 1) as verification to waiver the 5 minute observation period.    “the driver cannot benefit from the 5-minute consideration, as it does not apply in strictly no-parking areas.” You must put to Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd to differentiate the regulations between a bay marked ‘Taxi Rank’ and a bay marked ‘Taxi Drop off Point Only’ and clarify the minimum 5 minute consideration period observation between the two. I have only read their definition of the regulations regarding a ‘Taxi Rank’ which are immaterial to this case – as the driver did not park in a Taxi Rank.  In conclusion, the driver did not “choose to ignore the terms and remain on red route” they were not governed by the terms of the red route through dispensation from Transport for London. The driver did not park in a Taxi Rank, rather they set down a pre booked fare in the appropriate ‘Taxi drop off point only’ bay and were not given the minimum 5-minute observation grace period. Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd have not definitively proven that PoFA applies and I urge you to cancel the Parking Charge Notice. Please ease my confusion....thanks very much.

Ok, so this is my draft for POPLA...https://1drv.ms/w/c/daf5930527c9e82a/Ef9Yn3nUuGhEvZyg_QRRHhEBX-y1UlJFBfhC3ukFvRlxGQ?e=aItlnEI'd really appreciate any feedback on improvements/additions or retractions should what I've written sound like complete waffle...I'm not the best on using modern technology so I'm not sure about the link above so I have also saved the draft as a pdf (this I do know how to do) and attached it belowMany thanks over and over and over again!! [ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Noted - thanks for the heads up!I seriously wish I had just 1% of the knowledge and know how of all of you that help everyone. I would no doubt find this much easier to work out 

Thank you b789,I'll be working on a better POPLA response today.In regards to the TfL red route exemption please see these links...https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2007/december/licensed-minicabs-given-red-route-exemptionhttps://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/taxis-and-private-hire/parking-informationhttps://content.tfl.gov.uk/phv-driver-handbook-v1.pdf (the information is on page 26 section 6 Parking and Driving in London)I am confused though as to why it is necessary to respond to POPLA at all? PPS have clearly stated the driver was parked in a TAXI RANK which they weren't and the photos PPS have supplied prove they weren't. Surely on those grounds alone they would dismiss it? Are POPLA completely neutral or are they sided towards the parking firms? Is it a case of doing their work for them?The whole Excel area is plastered with red routes, there is no where for PHVs to drop off passengers - certainly not one that is designated for PHVs. What baffles me is the driver has dropped off passengers before and subsequently since without any issue. 

Good afternoon to all - again - I'm ever grateful to any response/advice/information/help that you have all given.I have been writing and re writing my rebuttal to POPLA and whilst I have many things going on in my head that I write down, I struggle to make heads or tails of it all.So far I have this....To the Assessor, I rebute several points made by Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd.  “In the present case, the driver parked on a taxi rank marked with double red lines, meaning that any other vehicle except a taxi is not permitted to park, wait or load/unload in the area; the driver cannot benefit from the 5-minute consideration, as it does not apply in strictly no-parking areas. By choosing to ignore the terms and remain on red route, the driver contravened the parking contract and became liable for a parking charge.” This statement is factually incorrect. The driver set down in a ‘taxi drop off point only’ marked bay which is adjacent to the Taxi Rank (see google maps link for verification below) https://www.google.com/maps/place/Excel+London/@51.5086088,0.0251321,3a,75y,92.82h,57.36t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sqmUE7TGjEvvq4Zt2eSONNw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D32.63670126946809%26panoid%3DqmUE7TGjEvvq4Zt2eSONNw%26yaw%3D92.8199944194477!7i16384!8i8192!4m6!3m5!1s0x47d8a80ce609e50d:0xa0de5f705d7aec7!8m2!3d51.5084601!4d0.029846!16zL20vMDR4ZG0w?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDYwOS4xIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D As stated in my appeal, the driver was operational at the time in a TfL licensed Private Hire Vehicle which has red route dispensation by TfL to enable them to pick up and set down passenger.  “It is important to note that the operator does not have to issue a notice directly to the driver of the vehicle, as it can hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. The evidence shows that the keeper was invited to identify the driver, but does not indicate that they provided us with the relevant information to transfer liability to the driver.” Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd have uploaded a contract document for review stating this is from the Landowner when it is in fact from the Leaseholder. This does not prove private land and therefore is not classed as relevant land. They have given no explanation as to why they have failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 which implies they have failed to comply with the requirements of the law. As the keeper of the vehicle, I have implicitly not accepted liability of this parking charge on behalf of the driver and due to non compliance with PoFA 2012, Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd can not transfer liability to myself.  I note that Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd have failed to address my appeal points...  2. Contradictory Road Markings – Red Route vs. Drop-Off Bay 3. Signage is 100% Prohibitory – No Contract Can Be Formed 5. Jopson v Homeguard – Set-Down is Not Parking ....that is it at the moment. I do not know if I am over complicating my response or under responding to it. I note in my previous post that I linked to IMGUR embedded images that hasn't seemed to work? This is the link that I hope will now work. https://imgur.com/a/J8m0koY The contract that PPS has supplied is attached again as I've mentioned in my POPLA response it shows 'leaseholder' and not 'landowner'Am I barking up the wrong tree with my POPLA response - can anyone advise me if there is something else I should or shouldn't be saying?The email I received from POPLA was dated the 11th June and it's 7 days to respond. I presume this means I have until Tuesday to send my response?  [ Guests cannot view attachments ] [ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Good afternoon,Yet again - I'm grateful for the advice you all give and I'm kindly asking for more.Following on from submitting the appeal to POPLA, this is the response I have had from them today....Your parking charge appeal against Private Parking Solution (London) - EW.Private Parking Solution (London) - EW has now uploaded its evidence to your appeal. This will be available for you to view by clicking xxxxPlease note: some evidence may not show immediately, if it is not currently available on your account please check back later before contacting us.You have seven days from the date of this correspondence to provide comments on the evidence uploaded by Private Parking Solution (London) - EW.Please note that these comments must relate to the grounds of appeal you submitted when first lodging your appeal with POPLA, we do not accept new grounds of appeal or evidence at this stageAny comments received after the period of seven days has ended will not be considered and we will progress your appeal for assessment. Therefore, if you have any issues with the evidence uploaded by Private Parking Solution (London) - EW such as being unable to view it online, please contact POPLA immediately via phone - 0330 1596 126, or email - info@popla.co.uk, so that we can look to rectify this as soon as possible.After this period has ended, we will aim to issue our decision as quickly as possible. The decision we reach is final and binding. When the decision is reached there is no further option for appeal.Yours sincerelyPOPLA TeamThe statement in response to my appeal that PPS has sent to POPLA is this...."Dear Assessor,According to the documents provided by the landowner and uploaded for review, the land in question is private land. The contract that we are seeking payment on has arisen from a breach of the notified terms and conditions of parking stated on the signs that the landowner has requested us to erect and permitted to remain erected at this location. The evidence demonstrates that the signage is clearly located to make motorists aware of the terms and conditions, and the potential consequences of non-adherence to the terms have been made fully available. A prominent entrance sign, facing the oncoming traffic, makes clear that parking on red routes is not allowed (NO PARKING ON RED ROUTE) and refers users to further signs within the site. The signage states “Red Route. No parking at any time. This private land is controlled by Wardens. If you fail to comply with any of the terms and conditions stated below you agree to pay a £100 Parking Charge Notice. No parking/waiting/loading/unloading on red routes or pedestrian footpaths. By parking on this private land you agree to comply with these terms and conditions (the parking contract) and accept liability to pay the fee for unauthorised parking." Additionally, there are double red lines on the road, indicating that stopping, parking, loading/unloading or boarding and alighting from a vehicle is prohibited.  While red routes are commonly associated with public roads managed by Transport for London (TfL), the rules regarding parking restrictions on red routes also apply when such markings and signage are present on private land. In the present case, an exception is provided for taxis, which are known for their ability to be hailed on the street without pre-booking. These taxis are licensed by local councils or relevant authorities and must adhere to specific standards. London's traditional black cabs, although now available in other colours, are a prime example of this type of taxi.Private Hire Vehicles (PHVs), sometimes called "minicabs," must be booked in advance and cannot use taxi ranks. According to Transport for London (TfL) regulations, PHVs are not permitted to stop or park on taxi ranks at any time, even to pick up or drop off passengers. While taxis may be granted certain exemptions on private land or public roads, any exceptions for taxis do not extend to PHVs. PHV drivers need to be aware of these distinctions to ensure compliance with parking restrictions and avoid parking charges. In the present case, the driver parked on a taxi rank marked with double red lines, meaning that any other vehicle except a taxi is not permitted to park, wait or load/unload in the area; the driver cannot benefit from the 5-minute consideration, as it does not apply in strictly no-parking areas. By choosing to ignore the terms and remain on red route, the driver contravened the parking contract and became liable for a parking charge.It is important to note that the operator does not have to issue a notice directly to the driver of the vehicle, as it can hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. The evidence shows that the keeper was invited to identify the driver, but does not indicate that they provided us with the relevant information to transfer liability to the driver. By failing to provide the driver's details, the appellant has assumed liability for this PCN."The new photo evidence that PPS has sent to POPLA is attached in the 'imgur' link below - they also attached the same photo's as before of the vehicle parked in the 'taxi drop off point only' which I have not included as they were linked in a previous post.<blockquote class="imgur-embed-pub" lang="en" data-id="a/J8m0koY" data-context="false" ><a href="//imgur.com/a/J8m0koY"></a></blockquote><script async src="//s.imgur.com/min/embedI have also attached a pdf that they sent of their contract they have as a private parking firm in control of that land.I hope you are able to view what I have attached and linked to?Can you please kindly advise as to what I should do now as previously mentioned - this is completely out of my remit! [ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Thanks again.In the 'other' section step 3 asks for 'your details' - this isn't an admission of who was the 'driver' at all is it?

Thanks, I've not done a Popla appeal before.I'm on Popla's web page now.I know this may sound a stupid question but am I selecting the grounds of appeal as 'I was not improperly parked' or 'other'.