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
    • Tommy94
    • By Tommy94 21st Aug 17, 7:09 PM
    • 6Posts
    • 2Thanks
    Tommy94
    JD Parking Consultants POPLA appeal - Leeds Faversham
    • #1
    • 21st Aug 17, 7:09 PM
    JD Parking Consultants POPLA appeal - Leeds Faversham 21st Aug 17 at 7:09 PM
    Hi,

    I am new to this forum, however I did read the newbies thread when I first got my PCN. JD parking consultants sent me a PCN of 60gbp which I challenged using the template provided by the newbies thread. However now, after that was rejected I have not got long to submit my POPLA Appeal and feel a bit lost in terms of how to appeal this.

    I have tried looking at other threads but can't seem to piece things together for it to be relevant to my case. The faversham does have signs and states it is private land but I feel it can be argued the signage is not clear, however, I don't have much else to argue. apparently the charge was issued based on the use of a 'warden operated camera system'.

    Any help on how to win the POPLA appeal and whether I should appeal or pay the reduced charge now would be great!

    Thanks,
Page 1
    • Redx
    • By Redx 21st Aug 17, 7:21 PM
    • 15,493 Posts
    • 19,579 Thanks
    Redx
    • #2
    • 21st Aug 17, 7:21 PM
    • #2
    • 21st Aug 17, 7:21 PM
    just use all the usual appeal points including no landholder contract , signage , not the same as Beavis , any NTK errors, POFA2012 failures etc

    see post #3 of the NEWBIES sticky thread , then draft your popla appeal from those examples etc, post it on here with NO personal info or references if you want advice

    you do the work, post it , people may comment , but nobody here will do it for you, people here are volunteers and there are far too many threads about this topic

    you are welcome to find a similar case to your own and adapt their popla appeal, its not as if its anything new , we have seen it all on here over the last 5 years

    ideally , adapt a popla appeal from this year only

    although its not the same, look at some of the legal arguments in this one

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5691915

    you can adapt some of them for your case
    Last edited by Redx; 21-08-2017 at 7:29 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
    • Tommy94
    • By Tommy94 21st Aug 17, 7:36 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Tommy94
    • #3
    • 21st Aug 17, 7:36 PM
    • #3
    • 21st Aug 17, 7:36 PM
    Hi,
    Thanks for your swift reply! I totally understand, just struggling to know exactly what to write. I have been researching for quite some time and this seems to be the most relevant POPLA appeal I have been able to find and adapt.

    Would be really grateful if people could have a look and offer any advice!


    Vehicle Registration Number xxxxxxxx
    PCN Reference xxxxxxxxxxx
    Issued by JD Parking Consultants Limited


    As the registered keeper of the above vehicle, I wish to appeal the parking charge notice JD Parking Consultants issued against it. I would like to have the parking charge notice cancelled based on the following grounds:

    1) Keeper Liability not established - The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012
    2) No Landowner Authority
    3) Lack of legible signage – no contract with driver
    4) The unclear signs and lack of proof of any legitimate interest/any right to sue customers/any authorised limit distinguishes this matter from the ParkingEye v Beavis case.
    5) Absent any contract, only the landowner could claim nominal damages for trespass

    ************************************************** **********

    1) Keeper Liability not established - The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012

    Although Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) gives a creditor the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from a vehicle’s keeper, this right is strictly subject to statutory conditions being met by the operator, without which the right to 'keeper liability' does not exist.

    I set out below a non-exhaustive list of reasons why JD Parking Consultant's Notice to Keeper failed to comply with Schedule 4 of POFA:

    (i) Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(a), the Notice to Keeper did not 'specify the period of parking' to which it related. It merely provided the date and time when the vehicle allegedly entered the car park; the time specified does not equate to any single evidenced period of parking. There is no evidence of a single period of parking and this cannot reasonably be assumed on the balance of probabilities.

    I put the operator to strict proof that there was only one period of parking, because this is a mandatory requirement for keeper liability also stated clearly here in Schedule 4, to reiterate the importance of parking evidence:


    (ii) ''9 (3)The notice must relate only to a single period of parking specified under sub-paragraph (2)(a)...''


    (iii) Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(b), the Notice to Keeper did not inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;

    BOTH the above prescribed requirements must be stated in the NTK and they were not.

    (iv) Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(e), the Notice to Keeper did not state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper: ... to pay the unpaid parking charges; or ... if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;

    The NTK fails to include all of the above wording, as prescribed under the statute.

    (v) Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(f), this NTK fails in the prescribed requirement - in exact words and with the correct deadline - to:

    ''warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given— ...the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and...the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;''


    (vi) Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(h), the Notice to Keeper does not identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made;


    (vii) Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(i) the Notice to Keeper does not specify the date on which the notice is sent (where it is sent by post) or given (in any other case).

    Consequently, JD Parking Consultants Limited has forfeited its right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

    If JD Parking Consultants should try to suggest that there is any method outwith the prescribed statute (POFA 2012) whereby a registered keeper can be held liable for a charge where a driver is not identified, I would remind them of the words of Mr Henry Greenslade, the 2015 POPLA Chief Adjudicator who ensured consistency of decisions since 2012, whereby POPLA never found against a registered keeper where a clearly non-POFA Notice to Keeper was served, as in this case.

    The Lead Adjudicator reminded operators (and his team of Assessors, in their training) of the following facts about a keeper's right not to name the driver and, of course, still not be lawfully able to be held liable, under Schedule 4:

    (Here will be a relevant URL)

    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.”

    The wording in the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 is as follows:

    ''Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle: 4(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. (2) The right under this paragraph applies only if—

    (a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6*, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met;


    *Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4:
    6(1) ''The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)— (b) has given a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 9.''

    The operator has failed to meet the second condition for keeper liability due to the multiple flaws in the NTK. Therefore, no lawful right exists to claim unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle as they have not met the required conditions within Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012.

    This too was confirmed by Mr Greenslade, POPLA Lead Adjudicator. in page 8 of the 2015 POPLA Report:

    ''If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''


    2) No landowner Authority

    I question JD Parking Consultant’s authority from the landowner, to enforce parking charges regarding alleged breaches at this car park.

    BPA CoP paragraphs 7.1 & 7.2 dictate some of the required contract wording. I put JD Parking Consultants to strict proof of the contract terms with the actual landowner (not a lessee or agent who has no more title than the operator). I question JD Parking Consultant's legal status to enforce this charge because there is no assignment of rights to pursue PCNs in the courts in neither their own name nor standing to form contracts with drivers themselves.

    They do not own this car park and appear (at best) to have a bare licence to put signs up and ‘ticket’ vehicles on site, merely acting as agents on behalf of a principal. No evidence has been supplied lawfully showing that JD Parking Consultants is entitled to pursue these charges in their own right in the courts which is a strict requirement within the BPA CoP. I suggest that JD Parking Consultants are certainly not empowered by the landowner to sue customers and visitors in the related car park and that issuing 'PCNs' by post is no evidence of any right to actually pursue charges in court.

    In addition, Section 7.3 of the CoP states:

    “The written authorisation must also set out:

    a) the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
    b) Any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
    c) Any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
    d) Who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
    e) The definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.''

    I put JD Parking Consultants to strict proof of compliance with all of the above requirements.

    So, I contend that the contract - if this operator produces one - does not reflect the poor signage and if only a basic agreement or 'witness statement' is produced, then this will fail to demonstrate compliance with 7.3 (in particular, point b and d, above).

    There is no proof of a contract; If JD Parking Consultants produce a contract it will not suffice unless it is accompanied by a letter of ongoing authority from the principal to the contract. ie the landowner of the pub.

    I require JD Parking Consultants to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner. I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice and does not allow them to charge and issue proceedings for this sum for this alleged contravention in this car park. In order to refute this it will not be sufficient for JD Parking Consultants merely to supply a site agreement or witness statement, as these do not show sufficient detail (such as the restrictions, charges and revenue sharing arrangements agreed with a landowner) and may well be signed by a non-landholder such as another agent. In order to comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner – not merely an ‘agreement’ with a non-landholder managing agent – otherwise there is no authority.


    3) Lack of signage – no contract with driver - no adequate notice of the charge

    I am the registered keeper and the driver has not been identified and I have no obligation to assist an operator in this regard. As liability for this charge depends entirely upon this operator fulfilling all requirements of Schedule 4, it is mandatory that the driver(s) are unambiguously and clearly informed of terms and the parking charge itself:

    (3) ''For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) “adequate notice” means notice given by — (b)...the display of one or more notices which—

    (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and

    (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land.''

    For the purposes of this appeal, I have now visited this same car park that this operator alleges was the site of a 'contract' being formed. In fact, their signs are not visible from a car seat before parking and the words are completely unreadable and incapable of forming a contract before the act of parking (it is trite law that afterwards - after parking in this case - is too late).

    The parking charge itself is not in 'large lettering'. When I visited recently for evidence and information to help with this appeal, I was specifically seeking out the signs and terms and still could not read the parking charge when expressly looking for it.

    They must show photos of the signs as the driver would seem them from a driver's seat, upon entering the car park.

    A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party ‘must’ have known of it and agreed terms. I question the fact that the driver saw any sign like that and so there was no consideration or acceptance and no contract agreed between the parties.

    The sign also breaches the BPA CoP Appendix B which effectively renders it unable to form a contract with a driver.

    In the Beavis case, the Supreme Court Judge concluded that signs must be in 'large lettering and prominent' and very clear as to the terms by which a driver will later be bound.


    4) The unclear signs and lack of proof of any legitimate interest/any right to sue customers/any authorised limit distinguishes this matter from the ParkingEye v Beavis case.

    BOTH parties are obliged to show how any case law they wish to rely upon, applies to and assists their own case. I can demonstrate that the ParkingEye v Beavis case assists my appeal.

    The reference in the Beavis case, to the need for clear, unambiguous terms and the parking charge and restrictions being copiously displayed and in 'large lettering' assists my position. Each case must turn on its own facts and much depends upon how an operator presents its own case because every car park and every charge and documents and dates and facts and interests, are different.

    I would remind POPLA that, at the end of September 2015, the outgoing POPLA Service Manager confirmed this (below) in writing, as the official POPLA policy regarding the requirement for proper application (or not, as the case may be) of the Beavis case by both parties. By definition, it is never the remit of POPLA to 'make the Beavis case' for an operator whose argument is weak or silent as regards any 'legitimate' basis for their charge:

    ''It does remain the position that it is for the party seeking to rely on any authority from a case in the higher courts, to explain how they submit it relates to the appeal in question and in particular the matter to be determined.''
    Yours sincerely
    R Reeve
    POPLA Administrative Team

    The point here is, the new POPLA Service cannot and must not make any wrong assumptions about liability and certainly are not empowered as an ADR, to impose the Beavis case arbitrarily upon all cases as if it is a 'silver bullet'. No case law about a single parking charge in a particular car park with different facts and its own signage, can possibly be a silver bullet striking out appeals regarding all other car parks/charges.

    There must be no misunderstanding by operators or POPLA that the Beavis case or 'GPEOL' automatically supersedes all other points of appeal about other parking charges in other car parks. It certainly does not 'supersede' all other points and each case must still turn on its own facts (and I am not even arguing about any 'GPEOL'!). Much more was said in the Parking Eye v Beavis judgment than findings about 'GPEOL' as opposed to 'commercial justification' and it did not shoot down any other parking charges, by default.

    The burden now shifts to this operator (not POPLA) to submit their argument to try to counter mine where I state that, due to the facts of THIS charge in THIS car park with these signs and this flawed rationale for the sum and lack of legitimate interest and authority, the Beavis case does not assist them at all.

    5) Absent any contract, only the landowner could claim nominal damages for trespass

    Without a contract it would seem the most appropriate offence would be a civil trespass. If this were the case, the appropriate sum that a landowner (only) could seek would be damages. As there was no damage to the car park there was no loss at all and therefore there should be no charge; any charge at all could only be nominal - to cover actual loss. Charges cannot be issued under the tort of trespass by a third party with no title in the land (this was confirmed in the Beavis decision).

    I have made my detailed submission to show how the applicable law (POFA), case law (Beavis) and the BPA Code of Practice undoubtedly supports my appeal, which I submit should now be determined in my favour.

    Therefore, it is respectfully requested that this parking charge notice appeal be allowed and the appeal should be upheld on every point.

    Yours sincerely,

    Registered Keeper
    • Redx
    • By Redx 21st Aug 17, 7:43 PM
    • 15,493 Posts
    • 19,579 Thanks
    Redx
    • #4
    • 21st Aug 17, 7:43 PM
    • #4
    • 21st Aug 17, 7:43 PM
    well done , seems to cover most or all of the bases , including what I said in my reply

    wait and see if there are any other replies but do not miss the deadline for submission

    save as a pdf , choose OTHER on the popla site and upload it

    then start reading about REBUTTALS for if or when they upload their evidence pack

    concentrate on signage , contracts and any other failures or errors etc
    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
    • Tommy94
    • By Tommy94 21st Aug 17, 7:46 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Tommy94
    • #5
    • 21st Aug 17, 7:46 PM
    • #5
    • 21st Aug 17, 7:46 PM
    Thanks, will definitely do that and will see if anyone has other suggestions too. I don't have any images of the signage as I'm not from around there, will this be a hinderance as well?

    Thanks for the quick advice!
    • Redx
    • By Redx 21st Aug 17, 7:48 PM
    • 15,493 Posts
    • 19,579 Thanks
    Redx
    • #6
    • 21st Aug 17, 7:48 PM
    • #6
    • 21st Aug 17, 7:48 PM
    they should include the contract and signage in their evidence pack, so you will have to pick through those (if they fail to cancel) and deal with them in your rebuttal , like contract errors, forbidding signage etc
    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
    • Tommy94
    • By Tommy94 22nd Aug 17, 12:46 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Tommy94
    • #7
    • 22nd Aug 17, 12:46 PM
    • #7
    • 22nd Aug 17, 12:46 PM
    but you definitely think I should appeal and not pay at this stage?
    • Redx
    • By Redx 22nd Aug 17, 2:11 PM
    • 15,493 Posts
    • 19,579 Thanks
    Redx
    • #8
    • 22nd Aug 17, 2:11 PM
    • #8
    • 22nd Aug 17, 2:11 PM
    I never make that decision nor will I ever tell another member what to do and none of my advice is based on if I think a defendant will win or lose, I never even consider it

    as you are an adult , I believe you should make up your own mind based on the facts and evidence and your own gut feeling

    so you will never get an answer from me on that question, nor will anyone else get one either (there are no guarantees at popla or in court , only a fool would try to predict an outcome)

    if somebody had asked me if it was safe to go for a holiday to Ischia last weekend , I would have said sure , chances are you will be fine , how wrong we can all be !!
    Last edited by Redx; 22-08-2017 at 3:04 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
    • Tommy94
    • By Tommy94 22nd Aug 17, 2:35 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Tommy94
    • #9
    • 22nd Aug 17, 2:35 PM
    • #9
    • 22nd Aug 17, 2:35 PM
    I get that, I guess a better question is ; do you know of any other outcomes with this company or do you know in general how POPLA proceedings have gone with similar cases? As I can't seem to find an outcome with this same company. Also is it likely that these things go to court now if POPLA is rejected?

    Understanding those questions would help me make my decision I think!

    Thanks!
    • Redx
    • By Redx 22nd Aug 17, 3:08 PM
    • 15,493 Posts
    • 19,579 Thanks
    Redx
    the only stuff that gets reported on here tends to be outcomes by members here or pepipoo forums, where both forums carry threads detailing wins and losses

    you certainly wont get data from anywhere else, except maybe the BMPA zendesk

    so to answer your question, if the diligent members here have put their decisions in the POPLA DECISIONS thread like we ask them all to, you wont find what you are looking for unless you use the search box and suitable search words and find them for yourself

    this is why we ask people to fill in the popla decisions thread and link their original thread, so people like yourself can find that data for yourself

    so I suggest you read that thread, starting from the end and working backwards , then look on pepipoo forums and the BMPA zendesk to see what other results you can find

    this isnt like finding football scores or horse racing results, its only as good as the members who give feedback , many dont , they just take the advice and run away , never to return and report back, leaving gaping gaps in our knowledge

    I dont recall seeing your PPC in those decisions though
    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 22nd Aug 17, 11:07 PM
    • 49,977 Posts
    • 63,380 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I get that, I guess a better question is ; do you know of any other outcomes with this company or do you know in general how POPLA proceedings have gone with similar cases? As I can't seem to find an outcome with this same company. Also is it likely that these things go to court now if POPLA is rejected?

    Understanding those questions would help me make my decision I think!

    Thanks!
    Originally posted by Tommy94
    If the NTK is not POFA-compliant, you WILL win, as long as the driver has never been divulged in appeal, earlier. I can't recall us ever losing at POPLA to JD.


    This point:

    1) Keeper Liability not established - The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012
    ...is usually followed as point #2, by the template from post #3 of the NEWBIES thread, about the appellant not having been shown to be the person liable.

    Definitely crack on to win and beat this scam at POPLA! We know what we are doing.

    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.

    • Tommy94
    • By Tommy94 13th Sep 17, 4:12 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Tommy94
    Rebuttal Help!
    So JD have submitted their evidence pack and I now have 7 days to reply against what they have posted.

    Mostly they have just posted photos of my car with the signage and stated that my car was parked close to the signage. They have said the signage is clear.
    ** IMAGES ATTACHED **

    [IMG]httpx://ibb.co/hwkJuF[/IMG]
    [IMG]httpx://ibb.co/hvDMEF[/IMG]

    I feel that the signage is not at eye level and actually I would've driven right past it as it is displayed more for when leaving the car park.

    They have also tried to state that the driver has been acknowledged? However, i've checked and in all responses I have stated I am the registered keeper and that they have no right to pursue the driver etc. They also have not responded to the NTK being non POFA compliant. They have simply uploaded photos of the PCN that they had sent to me. They state :
    ''Registered keeper’s details obtained from the DVLA. Hirer named by the registered
    keeper. Driver confirmed on appeal.''

    They have also said:
    'The Appellant has not denied that the terms and conditions of the parking policy were
    breached as the vehicle was parked without a valid permit on clear display and no
    authorisation to park was obtained.
    We request that the Appellant's appeal be refused.'

    The fact they have mentioned authorisation to park makes me want to mention that because of the poor signage, it was assumed that for customers using the pub; the parking would be free as this is usually the case. How can authorisation really be gained?

    So far I have written this; but it is not very good as has no legal technical terms in it etc. Any help would be appreciated!
    After viewing the evidence; I can respond systematically to each of the points raised.

    The claimant claims that the vehicle (XXXXX) was parked in close proximity to a sign, however as shown in their own image. This sign is not clear for any vehicle entering the car park. The sign is also not at eye level nor is it big enough for someone to read the points outlined on it unless they were standing very close to it. In terms of not denying breaching the agreement, as the registered keeper looking at this where it is stated that 'authorisation to park' should be obtained; I would imagine that a driver parking here has assumed that they can park as a customer as this would give them authorisation. Given the lack of clear signage, this is a fair assumption to make and does not warrant a fee of £100 being paid to the claimant.

    Secondly, I raise again the point that the NTK is not POFA compliant. For some reason the claimant states in comments that the 'driver confirmed on appeal' but I fail to see where this has occurred. In all correspondence it has been stated that the appellant is the registered keeper. In fact, in the first letter of appeal it has been stated that no liability is accepted and that the letter should be considered a section 10 notice.

    I must also refer to the generic denial of the first appeal by JD Parking Consultants, it is rich that they talk about not using copied and pasted material from the internet whilst they have sent me a generic and pasted reply as reason to deny my appeal.

    PLEASE HELP!
    Last edited by Tommy94; 13-09-2017 at 4:25 PM.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 13th Sep 17, 5:36 PM
    • 497 Posts
    • 590 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    https://ibb.co/hwkJuF
    https://ibb.co/hvDMEF

    Dont say "for some reason" they stated the driver was identified. State "The operator is delberately attempting to mislead POPLA by claiming the driver was identified. This is a lie, as has been shown on the appeal documents submitted by the appellant on X date....

    You then complain to the BPA that the operator is lying to POPLA.

    Go back to your appeal. Any points they have NOT commented on - such as landowner authority - you must state "the operator has not rebutted... and as such they are deemed to have agreed that my position is true. As they therefore lack the required land owner authority the appeal must be upheld". Do this for each one.
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

1,323Posts Today

7,296Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Shana tova umetuka - a sweet Jewish New Year to all celebrating. I won't be online the rest of t'week, as I take the time to be with family

  • Dear Steve. Please note doing a poll to ask people's opinion does not in itself imply an opinion! https://t.co/UGvWlMURxy

  • Luciana is on the advisory board of @mmhpi (we have MPs from most parties) https://t.co/n99NAxGAAQ

  • Follow Martin