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
    • DollyPeach
    • By DollyPeach 13th Aug 17, 7:16 PM
    • 35Posts
    • 56Thanks
    DollyPeach
    PCN Admin Centre Notice to Keeper/Hirer
    • #1
    • 13th Aug 17, 7:16 PM
    PCN Admin Centre Notice to Keeper/Hirer 13th Aug 17 at 7:16 PM
    I have just received a letter dated 8/8/17 (received 11/8/17) saying that I was issued a Parking Charge Notice on 12/6/17. Firstly, I was not the driver and was unaware of the PCN until I received the letter. After downloading a few format letters I came across this one:

    • [If appealing against a notice to keeper] The notice to keeper is incorrect
    The Notice to Keeper failed to meet the obligations of Schedule 4 of the POFA Act 2012. [eg if the Notice to Keeper arrived late (after 15 days following the alleged parking office, or after 56 days following the issue of a parking charge notice on your windscreen].

    12/6/17 to 11/8/17 is 60 days. Can I get this charge dismissed because it is over the 56 day specified time frame?
    Last edited by DollyPeach; 13-08-2017 at 7:46 PM.
Page 3
    • DollyPeach
    • By DollyPeach 4th Sep 17, 6:34 PM
    • 35 Posts
    • 56 Thanks
    DollyPeach
    Well I was hoping for more but this is the response from Steve Clark via Emma-Louise:

    "Thank you for your patience whilst this matter was investigated.

    I have received a response from ZZPS who advised that they identified the error on their end and the appeal was considered and formally rejected on 23/08/2017. They advised that a POPLA code was provided to you within the rejection.

    ZZPS have addressed the error with the agent concerned to ensure that they understand the Registered Keeper has 28 days from the Notice to Keeper in which to appeal. To ensure there is no confusion, the entire team within ZZPS have been reminded of the correct process and procedure.

    I hope that the above information is of assistance to you.

    Since the investigation has been concluded, I shall now proceed to close the case."
    • Redx
    • By Redx 4th Sep 17, 6:43 PM
    • 16,504 Posts
    • 20,667 Thanks
    Redx
    well, the good thing there is ZZPS got their backsides kicked and warned about compliance issues and supposedly had retraining regarding these issues, so hopefully you have a popla code and others will have their appeals properly dealt with from now on

    for all we know, the BPA may have issued sanction points and I am sure that the BPA staff have also learned something from this, ie:- not to fob people off with incorrect information like you were

    so I consider both of the above to be a good result and also if you have finally got your popla code too (which they infer in their reply)
    Last edited by Redx; 20-09-2017 at 7:52 PM.
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 5th Sep 17, 12:43 AM
    • 51,502 Posts
    • 65,112 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Well I was hoping for more but this is the response from Steve Clark via Emma-Louise:

    "Thank you for your patience whilst this matter was investigated.

    I have received a response from ZZPS who advised that they identified the error on their end and the appeal was considered and formally rejected on 23/08/2017. They advised that a POPLA code was provided to you within the rejection.

    ZZPS have addressed the error with the agent concerned to ensure that they understand the Registered Keeper has 28 days from the Notice to Keeper in which to appeal. To ensure there is no confusion, the entire team within ZZPS have been reminded of the correct process and procedure.

    I hope that the above information is of assistance to you.

    Since the investigation has been concluded, I shall now proceed to close the case."
    Originally posted by DollyPeach

    Dear Emma-Louise,

    In your reply to me at first, you wrongly said that AOS member scammers can ignore a keeper's appeal if they like. Your words were utterly untrue, either a lie or due to lack of training by the BPA:

    ''Once the 28 days have elapsed (which would have been on 10/07/2017) it is at the operators discretion as to whether they hear your appeal or continue to pursue you.''

    With respect - and I must assume you are new - that's absolute balderdash.

    Please confirm, before you close this complaint, that you and the rest of the 'team' have been reminded of the correct process and procedure, so you never fob off another consumer with wrong information pretending that one of your notorious 'AOS members' has discretion to ignore a keeper's valid appeal.

    You are on the wrong side, and the BPA fobbing off every consumer complaint is embarrassing at best, and a misleading business practice.

    yours,
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 05-09-2017 at 12:47 AM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • DollyPeach
    • By DollyPeach 6th Sep 17, 3:29 PM
    • 35 Posts
    • 56 Thanks
    DollyPeach
    Dear Emma-Louise,

    In your reply to me at first, you wrongly said that AOS member scammers can ignore a keeper's appeal if they like. Your words were utterly untrue, either a lie or due to lack of training by the BPA:
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Sent
    • DollyPeach
    • By DollyPeach 8th Sep 17, 4:54 PM
    • 35 Posts
    • 56 Thanks
    DollyPeach
    You have said before Coupon-mad that this forum is being read by all parties. I can confirm that this is true. This is my response from Steve Clark:

    Thanks for your note to Miss Field which has been passed to me for a response.

    I have looked at this matter with Miss Field and I can confirm that this was a genuine mistake on behalf of a new member of my staff. I can see how Miss Field made this error and I can assure you that we were not seeking to mislead you or make you go away.

    We will also be discussing these matters as a team to ensure that all of my investigators are on the same page.

    Please accept my apologies for this situation and pass them onto Coupon Mad as well, whoever he or she may be.

    Kind regards

    Steve Clark
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 8th Sep 17, 5:08 PM
    • 6,340 Posts
    • 8,149 Thanks
    beamerguy

    Please accept my apologies for this situation and pass them onto Coupon Mad as well, whoever he or she may be.

    Kind regards

    Steve Clark
    Originally posted by DollyPeach
    HAHAHA .... Everyone in the know, knows who coupon-mad is ?

    Coupon-mad probably does the work that Steve Clark should do
    but does not.

    All I can say is that new staff should be fully trained first before
    being let loose on the motorist.

    Thank goodness that the CoP will be operated by government
    early next year
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • DollyPeach
    • By DollyPeach 8th Sep 17, 7:02 PM
    • 35 Posts
    • 56 Thanks
    DollyPeach
    Well all I can say is THANK GOD for Coupon-mad and all the others on here that give their time for nothing to help out others, and try to fix what seems to be a broken system.

    So far I have been pursued for a parking incident that has nothing to do with me, lied to by the company issuing a fine that is not mine, then misinformed by that company’s regulator when I complained about the illegal behaviour of one of their members. So all in all I have been victimized three times and this thing is not over yet. How lucky am I? Maybe I should play the lottery?

    Without the help of everyone on this forum I would have been stressed to the max over all of this, PCN Admin Centre would continue to flout the law by suckering unsuspecting keepers into paying a fine that they are not legally bound to pay, and the clerks at the BPA would continue to give incorrect information to said victimized keepers.

    So Steve Clark, or Emma-Louise or whoever is reading this, Coupon-mad is a hero(ine) and without the advice given you would have more complaints because your staff would have continued giving out incorrect information.
    Last edited by DollyPeach; 08-09-2017 at 7:50 PM.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 8th Sep 17, 7:26 PM
    • 6,340 Posts
    • 8,149 Thanks
    beamerguy
    DollyPeach ... just make sure you spread the word about
    this forum

    By the way, coupon-mad is a lady
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 8th Sep 17, 11:21 PM
    • 51,502 Posts
    • 65,112 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Please accept my apologies for this situation and pass them onto Coupon Mad as well, whoever he or she may be.



    Hello Steve,

    The voice of reason at the BPA. Thankyou Steve for sorting this out.

    He knows who I am and so does Gemma; we've exchanged friendly emails before. Back in the day, they were as friendly and helpful as they could be, and knew their stuff. Unfortunately at the moment, the team fob people off, far too often, and that's when I write sarky replies!

    They know I am known not to suffer fools gladly.

    It would be good if the BPA stepped in properly to quash the worst conduct, like Gemma used to, then we might be getting somewhere.

    Oh, and the awful template replies are pretty shocking, the one that lectures people 'we are not a regulator (shhhhh...but we like it that the Government and Supreme Court kind of thought we were)' and the one that says, effectively: 'I have not identified any breach so go away' are not consumer-friendly.

    Wouldn't it be good if the page that the BPA team were on, included an aim to (in Dolly Peach's own words): ''try to fix what seems to be a broken system'' which is all we regulars are also doing. That's the page the BPA should be on, IMHO, when replying to harassed motorists who used to be said by the BPA to be ''at the heart of our thinking'' (laughable now).

    I wonder if we ever pass each other in the street when I am in Haywards Heath, or park next to each other somewhere in Sussex?!
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 08-09-2017 at 11:55 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 9th Sep 17, 7:57 AM
    • 6,340 Posts
    • 8,149 Thanks
    beamerguy


    I wonder if we ever pass each other in the street when I am in Haywards Heath, or park next to each other somewhere in Sussex?!
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Here Here C-M ..... just be careful to wear jeans or slacks and
    not a dress ... one never knows about this new culture
    Last edited by beamerguy; 09-09-2017 at 8:01 AM.
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • fisherjim
    • By fisherjim 9th Sep 17, 8:08 AM
    • 2,580 Posts
    • 3,839 Thanks
    fisherjim
    Wouldn't it be good if the page that the BPA team were on, included an aim to (in Dolly Peach's own words): ''try to fix what seems to be a broken system'' which is all we regulars are also doing. That's the page the BPA should be on, IMHO, when replying to harassed motorists who used to be said by the BPA to be ''at the heart of our thinking'' (laughable now).
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Maybe they are getting the jitters about the rumblings in parliament at last!
    • DollyPeach
    • By DollyPeach 20th Sep 17, 3:32 PM
    • 35 Posts
    • 56 Thanks
    DollyPeach
    I got my POPLA response and have to respond to Key Parking Solutions evidence within 7 days. (Just realised I don't have that long as I'll be out of the country as of Monday )

    "Key Parking Solutions Limited
    Operator Case Summary
    This appeal is opposed on the following grounds:

    • The vehicle was parked in breach of the terms and conditions of the car park as detailed in the signage on site by displaying an expired pay and display payment and had therefore not paid for the entire period of parking;

    • The appellant has not denied the contravention only focussed on aspects of insufficient signage and claims of misuse of data, the photographs clearly demonstrate the pay and display ticket had expired and the vehicle was still parked after the expiry of the grace period allowed, hence the contravention noted as “Vehicle timed out”;

    • The appellant claims the signage was not clear however the driver did purchase a pay and display ticket and therefore would have read the signage which clearly indicates the daily tariff for the site which is very easy and straightforward as evidenced in the photographs submitted herewith;

    • The Car Park Operator maintains the PCN was issued correctly and this appeal is therefore contested accordingly. Furthermore in response to the additional points raised by the appellant not previously raised in the original appeal:

    1) Non-POFA Notice to Keeper The CPO is not relying on PoFA in this matter and has not claimed this in the Notice to Keeper. Based on the submissions and communications it is asserted on the balance of probabilities that the keeper/appellant was also the driver at the time of the contravention.

    2) Key Parking Solutions Ltd.'s Parking Charge Notice is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the dates and the wording omitted. Point 1 repeated, - there has been no claim of relying on PoFA2012 in this matter

    3) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge. Further to Points 1&2 on the balance of probabilities the keeper is pursued as the likely driver in this matter having considered her communications to various parties regarding this PCN.

    4) No evidence of Landowner Authority The Landowner contract, site plans and photographs are included in evidence.

    5) No Contract was entered into between the Key Parking Solutions Ltd. and the Driver or Registered keeper The signage is the offer, the opporunity to read said signage is the consideration and the act of parking the vehicle is the acceptance of said contract as established within the industr.

    6) The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself The signage is prominent, clear, legible and is approved by the BPA and meets all tests of reasonableness, The tariff is very straightforward and the required notification of the issue of a PCN for breach of the terms and conditions is evident and cleartly communicated.

    7) Insufficient Grace Period The grace period is 10 minutes as required and detailed in the BPA Code of Practice"


    How can they just presume I was the driver. I wasn't the driver and that should be enough to shut them up but apparently it isn't.
    Last edited by DollyPeach; 20-09-2017 at 4:21 PM. Reason: Broke it into paragraphs for easier reading.
    • DoaM
    • By DoaM 20th Sep 17, 4:00 PM
    • 3,494 Posts
    • 3,551 Thanks
    DoaM
    Please use the ENTER key and break up that wall of text. (Clue - there are bulleted and numerical points; each should be on a new line). If you don't you're less likely to get people willing to read it.
    Diary of a madman
    Walk the line again today
    Entries of confusion
    Dear diary, I'm here to stay
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 20th Sep 17, 4:05 PM
    • 15,495 Posts
    • 24,205 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    I agree with DoaM. I just don't read walls of text.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    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.
    • DollyPeach
    • By DollyPeach 20th Sep 17, 4:37 PM
    • 35 Posts
    • 56 Thanks
    DollyPeach
    Please use the ENTER key and break up that wall of text. (Clue - there are bulleted and numerical points; each should be on a new line). If you don't you're less likely to get people willing to read it.
    Originally posted by DoaM
    Thanks DoaM. I did this already before I read your reply.
    • DollyPeach
    • By DollyPeach 20th Sep 17, 4:41 PM
    • 35 Posts
    • 56 Thanks
    DollyPeach
    I agree with DoaM. I just don't read walls of text.
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    Yes I realise that. I have started a draft response but based on previous posts I wanted to post and see if anything was glaringly obvious to the more seasoned forum members.

    My silver bullet should be that I wasn't the driver. How can they legally base their defense on probabilities? By presuming that I was the driver based on “probabilities” they denied me the right to appeal as keeper. I am the keeper of two vehicles. That reduces their probability that I was the driver by 50%. I was not the driver therefore as far as I'm concerned they cannot pursue me for a charge for which I am not liable.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 20th Sep 17, 4:45 PM
    • 15,495 Posts
    • 24,205 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    How can they just presume I was the driver. I wasn't the driver and that should be enough to shut them up but apparently it isn't.
    You have to make that point to POPLA. Quote the Henry Greenslade advice.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    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.
    • DollyPeach
    • By DollyPeach 20th Sep 17, 7:32 PM
    • 35 Posts
    • 56 Thanks
    DollyPeach
    I have started my draft response and I think that the fact that I was not the driver and the PCN was non-POFA compliant should be the main focus. I know it's repetitive but I am answering their appeal point by point. Please feel free to offer advice.

    Key Parking Solutions seem to be basing their appeal for their right to pursue me as keeper of the vehicle on probabilities and not on compliance with the law.

    Below is Key Parking Solutions appeal in red. My response to their appeal is in black.

    Key Parking Solutions Limited
    Operator Case Summary
    This appeal is opposed on the following grounds:

    • The vehicle was parked in breach of the terms and conditions of the car park as detailed in the signage on site by displaying an expired pay and display payment and had therefore not paid for the entire period of parking;

    • The appellant has not denied the contravention only focussed on aspects of insufficient signage and claims of misuse of data, the photographs clearly demonstrate the pay and display ticket had expired and the vehicle was still parked after the expiry of the grace period allowed, hence the contravention noted as “Vehicle timed out”;

    I could not possibly deny or confirm the alleged contravention as I was not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention.

    • The appellant claims the signage was not clear however the driver did purchase a pay and display ticket and therefore would have read the signage which clearly indicates the daily tariff for the site which is very easy and straightforward as evidenced in the photographs submitted herewith;


    • The Car Park Operator maintains the PCN was issued correctly and this appeal is therefore contested accordingly. Furthermore in response to the additional points raised by the appellant not previously raised in the original appeal:

    Non-POFA Notice to Keeper The CPO is not relying on PoFA in this matter and has not claimed this in the Notice to Keeper. Based on the submissions and communications it is asserted on the balance of probabilities that the keeper/appellant was also the driver at the time of the contravention.

    The Car Park Operator did not include POFA in their PCN notice to the keeper – in their words “The CPO is not relying on PoFA in this matter and has not claimed this in the Notice to Keeper.” A charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a POFA-compliant NTK. Therefore they cannot pursue me, the keeper, for the charge. No lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from a keeper, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.

    The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge. I am the keeper of two vehicles. That reduces their probability that I was the driver by 50%. I was NOT the driver therefore they cannot pursue me for a charge for which I am not liable.

    In cases with a keeper/appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

    Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay, not by POPLA, nor the operator, nor even in court. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a POFA-compliant NTK. The burden of proof rests with the Operator, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot show that I am personally liable and will continually fail to show me to be liable because the driver was not me.

    The vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:-
    Understanding keeper liability

    “There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

    There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4} is not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''

    No lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from a keeper, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA. This exact finding was made in a very similar case with the same style NTK in 6061796103 v ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
    ''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''


    2) Key Parking Solutions Ltd.'s Parking Charge Notice is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the dates and the wording omitted. Point 1 repeated, - there has been no claim of relying on PoFA2012 in this matter

    As stated previously, claiming that they are not relying on POFA does not make their attempt to pursue me as keeper any more valid. In their own words “The CPO is not relying on PoFA in this matter and has not claimed this in the Notice to Keeper.” So even if I was the driver – which I was not – they could not legally pursue me because the POFA wording was omitted from their PCN and no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from a keeper, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.

    3) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge. Further to Points 1&2 on the balance of probabilities the keeper is pursued as the likely driver in this matter having considered her communications to various parties regarding this PCN.

    Again, despite their balance of probabilities I WAS NOT THE DRIVER and am therefore not liable for the charge. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. If POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is not complied with, which by their own admission it wasn’t, then they cannot legally transfer the liability to me as keeper.

    4) No evidence of Landowner Authority The Landowner contract, site plans and photographs are included in evidence.

    5) No Contract was entered into between the Key Parking Solutions Ltd. and the Driver or Registered keeper The signage is the offer, the opporunity to read said signage is the consideration and the act of parking the vehicle is the acceptance of said contract as established within the industr.

    6) The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself The signage is prominent, clear, legible and is approved by the BPA and meets all tests of reasonableness, The tariff is very straightforward and the required notification of the issue of a PCN for breach of the terms and conditions is evident and cleartly communicated.

    7) Insufficient Grace Period The grace period is 10 minutes as required and detailed in the BPA Code of Practice"
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 21st Sep 17, 1:29 AM
    • 51,502 Posts
    • 65,112 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Don't quote their 4, 5, 6, 7 if you aren't commenting on that bit.

    And I recommend that comments on evidence are much briefer, or POPLA will think you are re-writing your appeal and introducing new evidence. Keep it much shorter, bullet points, no need to repeat their points for example, just comment, and avoid repetition.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • DollyPeach
    • By DollyPeach 21st Sep 17, 2:12 PM
    • 35 Posts
    • 56 Thanks
    DollyPeach
    Don't quote their 4, 5, 6, 7 if you aren't commenting on that bit.

    And I recommend that comments on evidence are much briefer, or POPLA will think you are re-writing your appeal and introducing new evidence. Keep it much shorter, bullet points, no need to repeat their points for example, just comment, and avoid repetition.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Thank you all for your help. It is appreciated more than you know. This BS is keeping me awake at night.

    I have re-written my response taking all of your comments on board.

    I didn't bullet point it except for the last paragraph but if you think that I should then I will.

    Key Parking Solutions seem to be basing their appeal for their right to pursue me as driver of the vehicle on probabilities and not on compliance with the law.

    Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay, not by POPLA, nor the operator, nor even in court. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be). There has been no admission regarding who was driving.

    There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. The burden of proof rests with the Operator, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. In order to pursue me for the charge as if I was the driver they would need to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim. They will never come up with this evidence as I WAS NOT THE DRIVER.

    As far as transferring the charge to me as keeper, they would have needed to have sent me a POFA-compliant NTK within the time period specified by law. They failed on both of these requirements as by their own admission “The CPO is not relying on PoFA in this matter and has not claimed this in the Notice to Keeper.” Additionally, the NTK that I did receive was received well outside of the mandatory time frame specified by law.

    It has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a POFA-compliant NTK.

    With this in mind I am asking that you dismiss this claim by Key Parking Solutions on the basis that:

    • I was not the driver at the time of the contravention and no evidence has been submitted to suggest otherwise.

    • Key Parking solutions cannot legally transfer the charge to me as keeper as they failed (by their own admission) to issue me with a POFA-compliant Notice to Keeper.

    Kind regards,
    Last edited by DollyPeach; 21-09-2017 at 2:16 PM.
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

3,015Posts Today

8,278Users online

Martin's Twitter