POPLA Code issued, advice needed please

Umkomaas

You need to go through it point by point and rebut anything that is either totally incorrect (ie just not appropriate/linked to your parking event) or argue against points such as the GPEOL list they may have put into their evidence.

You do this to POPLA, not the PPC!

Where there is something 'not appropriate', you will need to put in an explanation not just a 'N/A' against the point.

Just as in a court case it can be assumed that any point you do not rebut is accepted by you as correct.

balders974

Thanks Umkomaas,

So as they've sent me someone else's evidence pack I assume I can rebut the whole thing, and possibly refer to the fact they are not in keeping with the data protection act by having forwarded someone else's correspondence and home address details to me?

Balders

Coupon-mad

Yep say all that and point out that as a result, you have receive NO evidence about your case. Email POPLA not the PPC.

As this is Highview, it shows they are acting true to their efforts with the Parking Prankster when they sent POPLA a map of the wrong car park!

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/highview-parking-send-in-map-of-wrong.html

balders974

Thanks coupon-mad,

Since emailing POPLA notifying them Highview had sent the incorrect evidence pack I was forwarded the correct evidence pack yesterday, (although my appeal was due to be decided on the 16th September).

I'm seriously considering complaining to the ICO about Highview's breach of the Data Protection Act now just to irritate them as much as they have me

Balders

balders974

Hi All,

Just wanted to say a big thank you to everyone that has helped/given me advice, I received the decision of my POPLA appeal today and my appeal was Upheld on point 4- No Creditor Identified on Notice to Keeper.

once again, thanks all

Balders

Umkomaas

Any chance of the transcript and POPLA adjudicator's name please?

Coupon-mad

balders974 wrote: »

Hi All,

Just wanted to say a big thank you to everyone that has helped/given me advice, I received the decision of my POPLA appeal today and my appeal was Upheld on point 4- No Creditor Identified on Notice to Keeper.

once again, thanks all

Balders

That's unusual - we would really like to see that and also if you could post the decision, the POPLA 10 digit code (so we can quote your case in future) and the name of the PPC, in the POPLA Decisions thread too?

balders974

Coupon-mad, Umkomaas

i've copied and posted the transcript into the POPLA Decisions sticky at the top of the forum along with assessors name, i'll try and edit it to add the POPLA Reference code, but incase i have difficulty i've also added it again with the whole transcript below.

balders



18 September 2014
Reference 2922064001
always quote in any communication with POPLA
XXXX XXXXXX (Appellant)
-v-
Highview Parking Limited (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number 450140604004 arising out of the presence at Premier House, Edgware, on 4 June 2014, of a vehicle with registration mark XXXX XXX
The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.
The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has determined that the appeal be allowed.
The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.
The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.
2922064001 2 19 September 2014
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
At 09:32 on 4 June 2014, a vehicle with registration mark XXXX XXX was recorded by an ANPR system entering the car park at Premier House. The car was recorded leaving at 10:29, having violated the terms displayed on the signage. A parking charge notice was therefore issued.
The appellant raised more than one ground of appeal, however I shall only deal with the ground upon which the appeal is being allowed. Specifically, the appellant did not admit to being the driver and submitted that the notice to keeper was inadequate as it did not properly indicate the creditor.
The appellant has at no point admitted to being the driver of the vehicle and no evidence of this has been provided. Therefore in order for the appellant to be liable for the charge the keeper liability requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 must be complied with.
One of these requirements is the issue of a ‘notice to keeper’ compliant with certain provisions. In these circumstances, these provisions are found in paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of the Act. The operator must produce evidence that this has occurred regardless of whether the issue is raised by the appellant, as the liability is not based in the law of contract but is created by the statute. The notice to keeper issued by the operator appears not to comply with sub-paragraph 2(h) as it does not identify the creditor. The identification of the operator as the organisation to which cheques should be made payable and to whom complaints may be made does not constitute an identification of the creditor, as an organisation that is not the creditor could perform all the specified roles. As the notice to keeper is not valid, I cannot find that the charge notice is enforceable against the appellant. In the light of this, I am not required to consider the appellant’s substantive case.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.


Nadesh Karunairetnam
Assessor

Umkomaas

An appeal upheld on a new element - the lack of identification of the creditor - and a new Assessor, if I'm not mistaken.

One for quotation in the future? Saved for posterity via bookmark.

One of these requirements is the issue of a ‘notice to keeper’ compliant with certain provisions. In these circumstances, these provisions are found in paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of the Act. The operator must produce evidence that this has occurred regardless of whether the issue is raised by the appellant, as the liability is not based in the law of contract but is created by the statute. The notice to keeper issued by the operator appears not to comply with sub-paragraph 2(h) as it does not identify the creditor. The identification of the operator as the organisation to which cheques should be made payable and to whom complaints may be made does not constitute an identification of the creditor, as an organisation that is not the creditor could perform all the specified roles. As the notice to keeper is not valid, I cannot find that the charge notice is enforceable against the appellant. In the light of this, I am not required to consider the appellant’s substantive case.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.


Nadesh Karunairetnam

The emboldened statement is very interesting! Brave decision by a new Assessor, but I suspect the wrath of the BPA may soon be visited upon him/her!

Coupon-mad

That's great! That's a decision made on a new fact, and we have the code to quote (and we will!!).

Christopher Monk also uses that phrase you highlighted in red, Umkomaas, so it must be a standard template line POPLA have in their stash of one-liners.