Topher Charge Notice

Bertie129

After requesting it from POPLA, I received a copy of the evidence sent by Topher by email today. They had submitted evidence to POPLA, but not to me, despite having declared that they had also submitted a copy to me.

Here are the relevant pages with identifying parts removed (date, location, name):

http://s13.postimg.org/9eu44jcbq/PAP_Page_03.jpg
http://s27.postimg.org/w4lnw82hu/PAPL_Page_04.jpg
http://s27.postimg.org/uhwgazqg2/PAPL_Page_15.jpg
http://s27.postimg.org/4nmnl7qg2/PAPL_Page_16.jpg
http://s27.postimg.org/5c03hwejm/PAPL_Page_17.jpg
http://s27.postimg.org/j6ye0d8yq/PAPL_Page_18.jpg
http://s27.postimg.org/s5t1r538i/PAPL_Page_20.jpg

They have made a number of glaring mistakes. Firstly they've stated that the charge amount is £75 (apparently to match the signs in the pictures, which may be of a different car park), despite the fact that the charge is for £85 (which can be seen elsewhere in the evidence pack where they've copied the original notice).

They've also stuck with the "90 minutes maximum stay". Unfortunately I wasn't able to return to this car park before the deadline to get photographic evidence that the signs in fact stated 2 hours.

They've supplied photos of parking signs in a car park (not necessarily *the* car park) which look to me distinctly photoshopped. Is this just me? The photos are very poor quality, but the red text stating that the area is covered by "ANPR cameras" looks pasted in. This is particularly evident on page 15 and 17 (links 3 and 5) above. In page 15, the text is all at different angles and in all other pictures there is a white patch around the red text.


They also claim that the notice was not issued under POFA. Does POFA apply to a claim for damages for a contractual breach? I "did not deny" being the driver, but did not state either way. I talked about the driver in the third person, because I was not, in fact, the driver.

Any thoughts?

Edit: trying to work out how to get the photos bigger!

Bertie129

Fixed photos.

Aaron_Aadvark

£75 reduced to £50 for prompt payment. What happened to the 40% discount required by the BPA Ltd? Now if the charge were £85 then the discount would be correct. Hmmm.

And Topher are their own witnesses!

I think a complaint to Mr Greenslade, the BPA Ltd and the DVLA is in order.

Umkomaas

Topher have signed their own Witness Statement on behalf of Homebase, as AA points out. Are they serious? Just shows the level of their understanding of any of this stuff! Beggars belief!

Would love to have a Judge look at this :rotfl::rotfl:

Bertie129

Thanks very much to everyone for their help. Sorry for my lateness getting back here (we've been in the middle of a house move), but thanks to you this case was eventually found in our favour.

The POPLA assessor found in our favour on the grounds of NGPEOL.

http://s7.postimg.org/531c3u49n/page_001_redacted.jpg
http://s28.postimg.org/jwmde73l9/page_002_redacted.jpg

What I find interesting is that he notes the "duplicated costs", suggesting that Topher are actually fabricating their costs to come up with an inflated figure.

What's even more astonishing is that their supposed "losses" are almost exclusively made up of the cost of pursuing me for their supposed losses! Which is pretty amazing circular reasoning. Aren't these just their standard business costs?!

Coupon-mad

Well done - it was never in doubt! And duplicated costs is typical of a PPC! Have you added this success to the POPLA Decisions thread at the top, adding in your post there to say which PPC you beat?

Bertie129

I'll add it to the thread. Many thanks, Coupon-mad!

I have complained to Homebase head office about their association with these cowboys, after POPLA found that Topher are "duplicating" their supposed costs in order to justify an inflated charge.

Still no reply from Homebase. I don't think we'll be shopping there any more.