POPLA appeal successful, then reviewed & failed

Advice wanted on how to respond (if at all).

I received a PCN from NSGL on 8th July at Gloucester South Doc. I was displaying a valid ticket and have witnesses and photos to prove it. I appealed to NSGL. They rejected my appeal having their photos taken from angles/with reflections on a sunny day that don't show the ticket.
I then appealed to POPLA who allowed my appeal, but subsequently "it came to their attention that some evidence was missed" so they had to review the appeal. That review is still ongoing. (see earlier post by Bryen in early October).
Today I received a Notice to Keeper letter from NSGL saying the PCN is overdue and I should pay the £80 or tell them the driver's details with threat to use debt recovery service. How should I respond given the POPLA Appeal is still ongoing?

Please can you critique my complaint to POPLA. The complaint arises from their handling of the appeal I made relating to a PCN received for failure to display a valid parking ticket. The Operator, NSGL, has photos that purport to show no visible ticket, whilst I have photos from different angles which clearly show a valid ticket.

The initial POPLA judgement issued on 29th September was to allow my appeal. In particular MY stated “The operator has provided a photograph of the appellant’s vehicle with the PCN attached and the photograph (date/time stamped 08/07/16 17:56:58) shows what appears to be the appellant’s parking ticket, visible on the driver side of the dashboard ... accordingly I must allow this appeal”.

Then on 3 October I received an email saying that “it has recently come to our attention that some evidence was missed by the assessor when investigation your appeal. As such, we will have to review the appeal.” Due to problems with the POPLA forum, it was only when I received a Notice to Keeper that I became aware that a revised decision had been made and after a couple of phone calls to POPLA they emailed out the following yesterday.

“The operator's case is that the appellant was not displaying a pay & display ticket in the vehicle. The appellant states that he was displaying a pay & display ticket in his vehicle on this date. He states that he has provided photographic evidence to show that a ticket was displayed in the windscreen and that the ticket was valid.

The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage at the site. The signage states “Private Property: A parking charge of £80 will be applied to vehicles that do not comply with the following regulations: Failure to display a valid pay and display ticket”.

The operator states that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued because the appellant failed to display a parking ticket.
The appellant states that a ticket was clearly on display.
The operator has provided me with photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle parked at the Gloucester Docks Car Park.
The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, section 20.5b states that “In deciding whether a payment ticket has been visibly displayed on a vehicle you must do a thorough visual check of the dashboard and windows”.
Having reviewed the evidence provided by both the appellant and the operator, I am not satisfied that there was a parking ticket visible in the vehicle on the date of the contravention.
The photographs provided by the operator have been time and date stamped which confirm that on the date that the appellant had parked, he had failed to display a ticket in the windscreen on the vehicle.
Although the appellant has provided photographs of his vehicle displaying a ticket, I cannot confirm when this photograph was taken as it is not date stamped. As such, I do not consider this to be sufficient evidence to disprove what the operator has said. Therefore, whilst I acknowledge the reasons for the appellant’s appeal, the terms and conditions of the car parking site, were not met. It is the driver’s responsibility to adhere to the terms and conditions and check these before leaving the vehicle unattended.
As such, I can only conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly.
Accordingly, the appeal must be refused.”

My complaint is as follows:

FAO Mr John Gallagher: Complaint to POPLA over their handling of case XXXXX.

The handling of my case raises serious concerns over the impartiality, processes and competence of POPLA and these need to be addressed to maintain its reputation.

Firstly why was the case reviewed? Your web site says “POPLA is a one stage process,... unless it is clear that a procedural error was made.” What procedural error was made as I’m sure that there are a number of Quality Processes in place that MY adhered to in making public his judgement to allow my appeal. Can you confirm the procedural error and also that in the period between the 29th September and the initiation of the review on the 3rd October that no external contact was made by NSGL, BPA or any other body to influence POPLA?

Secondly the review was because “it has come to our attention that some evidence was missed by the assessor”. What was that evidence and have I seen it/had the chance to comment?

It is also clear that AB in making her judgement to disallow my appeal only used the evidence that was available to MY, she just took a different view of that evidence. Hence it appears that the “missing evidence” was a spurious reason to reopen the Appeal.

Thirdly turning to AB’s handling of the evidence; she states that “she cannot confirm when the photographs were taken.” In my appeal submission I included the jpeg files for my photos and stated that “All the jpgs I have attached are unaltered and taken before I opened my car on return to the car park. The times can be obtained by right clicking, noting the two cameras, IMG ref, are on GMT (i.e. 6pm GMT is 7pm BST) whilst the mobile phone, HDR ref was on British Summer time.” The time of my photographs was therefore available to the assessor. Why did AB not right click the files to confirm dates and times? It was also the purpose of including an independent witness statement to confirm the timings and visibility of the valid parking ticket. Why was this ignored?

I also thought it was a principle of our legal system that one was presumed innocent (of not displaying a valid ticket) unless proven guilty. The NSGL photos do not prove guilt.

Fourthly MY in allowing my appeal stated: “The operator has provided a photograph of the appellant’s vehicle with the PCN attached and the photograph (date/time stamped 08/07/16 17:56:58) shows what appears to be the appellant’s parking ticket, visible on the driver side of the dashboard”. Why did AB ignore this clear evidence in my favour in reaching her judgement?

Please respond within 7 days.