POPLA help please

CIMad

Thanks all. Is there something "better" or "more appropriate" to use for the ANPR section, since I believe the "charge" is not due to overstaying time period but possibly to do with the registration system in reception. Can they prove that is 100% reliable and accurate?

Guys_Dad

CIMad wrote: »

Thanks all. Is there something "better" or "more appropriate" to use for the ANPR section, since I believe the "charge" is not due to overstaying time period but possibly to do with the registration system in reception. Can they prove that is 100% reliable and accurate?

It all depends upon how the registration system in reception works.

If you have to enter the Registration number yourself, then you are on weaker ground than if the receptionist is required to do it.

If the latter, then bring out that point.

Coupon-mad

CIMad wrote: »

Thanks all. Is there something "better" or "more appropriate" to use for the ANPR section, since I believe the "charge" is not due to overstaying time period but possibly to do with the registration system in reception. Can they prove that is 100% reliable and accurate?

You can and should certainly add your own relevant points to the 'templates'. Just avoid saying who the driver was (so no accidentally putting 'me, myself or I' when talking about who parked the car or put in the car reg).


This point below is very relevant if you specifically argue (as well as arguing 'no GPEOL' and 'no standing' and unclear signage and dodgy ANPR system, of course) that the Notice to Keeper is therefore not compliant with paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012, as such there is NO keeper liability. It is far more important to show wording does not meet the POFA 2012 (which does mean a keeper wins at POPLA) than to say the wording doesn't meet the BPA CoP (which does not in itself win):

The PCN issued by xxxx does not make it clear what offence is supposed to have taken place. It states the from and to times (less than 3 hours) then states “Maximum 3 hours free parking for authorised users only.”
I have appealed to xxxxx but they have not clarified what the driver has or has not done which has broken their terms and conditions. (21.8 of the BPA Code of Practice states that the letter to keeper should point out the details of the unauthorised parking event.) As stated above it does not show this detail.


Use none of this as it lends nothing to the appeal and admits the driver 'is unable to prove' they used the Sports Facilities. You should be making them prove their allegations, it's not for you to prove:

Due to the proximity of the facility to both retail facilities and a railway station, one would imagine that the purpose of the “enforcement” is to stop users of the retail and railway facilities using the car park of the sports facility. However, given the issue time and date of the alleged ANPR event, it should be apparent that the driver was not using the railway (the driver would be hard pushed to walk to the station, travel and then return within an hour), nor the retail facilities. Therefore, although the driver is unable to prove that they were using the sports facilities,

CIMad

Ok, has this ever been considered?

It is unreasonable and an unfair contract term, to attempt to charge someone for allegedly parking, without proof that they have actually done so. Civil Enforcement Ltd are making an assumption that because the car entered and exited the car park, (as proven by their ANPR system) that it was parked. If the car had not been parked (but simply driven around the car park looking for a space, then no contravention of any “Parking Terms” can have taken place. Civil Enforcement have yet to prove that the vehicle was parked, they are just making an assumption.

Dee140157

I am pretty sure a Fistral case was won on this. Search the Forum for Fistral.

bazster

Dee140157 wrote: »

I am pretty sure a Fistral case was won on this. Search the Forum for Fistral.

Yup, sure was.

bod1467

That was what IvorPECheque won for - well at least one of the points anyway.

CIMad

Thanks, useful that can be included.

Another point I have considered is that the signs include important instructions which are written in UPPER CASE. UK Traffic Sign Regulations stipulate that "Transport" font in a mix of upper and lower case is used for road signs (including informational ones) because a mix of Upper and Lower Case is much easier to read than WHEN EVERYTHING IS IN UPPER CASE. Particularly when driving. If this isn't part of BPA Code, then it should be considered!!

Additionally- signs in dark, is it a valid point if the "parking event" took place at Noon (for example!)

Dee140157

I would add the font point even though I don't know if it would help.

The in the dark point is about the general compliance of the sign for all users. The fact that your parking incident was at noon, does not make the signs compliant.

CIMad

Thanks, I was only speculating but I may not have even parked and the event may not have been at noon!