Incorrect registration on windscreen PCN

Sophia29

Umkomaas wrote: »

3. The points you make about the non-compliance with PoFA in the context of the NtK need to be crystallised by making the statement that this non-compliance renders the keeper not liable for these charges, and ANPR Ltd are pursuing the wrong person. You have to make that point to have any chance of POPLA making an adjudication on the POFA appeal paragraph.

4. Appeal point 7 - BPA Code of Practice compliance. Not in itself a POPLA adjudication point (they say that's for the BPA to deal with, not POPLA) - but the point you must make is that POPLA have said that where they become aware of CoP 'misdemeanours' they will inform the BPA of them. Ask them to do that. I'll hunt around for the link with that information, so you can quote it back to them. I'll return later if I can find it (or if another regular has the link, maybe they'll drop it by).

HTH

EDIT: Here's the quote:



From the Lead Adjudicator's Annual Report 2013, linked here:

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/POPLA_report_embargoed_until_2pm_4.6.13.pdf

I've amended the letter now - if you have time could you let me know if you think I've made the point of rendering the keeper not liable clear enough? I've also adjusted point 7.


6. Non-compliance with POFA 2012

6.1 Failure to meet time limits as set out in POFA 2012

Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012, paragraphs 8(5) specify the time limits for serving a Notice to Keeper. Non-compliance renders the registered keeper not liable for the charge in question and the registered keeper cannot be pursued for the supposed charge.

ANPR Ltd. sent a notice to keeper dated 10/10/2014 for the alleged offence which is dated 13/8/2014. Therefore the notice to keeper was sent 58 days after the alleged offence and received by the registered keeper 61 days after the alleged offence.

ANPR Ltd. have therefore failed to meet the deadline set by POFA
2012 as it states the notice to keeper must be sent “no later than 56 days” in order to deem the keeper liable.

This non-compliance now removes all liability from the keeper and renders the keeper not liable for this alleged charge and therefore I respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

6.2 Failure to meet requirements as set out in POFA 2012

Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012, paragraphs 9(2a) states the notice to keeper must clearly include “the period of parking to which the notice relates”. The notice to keeper sent by ANPR Ltd. does no such thing and therefore fails to meet the requirements which again, removes all liability from the registered keeper and renders the keeper not liable for this alleged charge and therefore I respectfully request my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

6.3 Failure to meet requirements as set out in POFA 2012

I state the following points (6.3, 6.4, 6.5 and 6.6) due to the notice to driver being passed to me after receiving the notice to keeper. On obtaining both documents, it is clear the Notice to Driver included a different registration to the vehicle now in question and different date to the date referred to in all prior correspondence.

Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012, paragraphs 8 (c) state that the notice to keeper must “state that a notice to driver relating to the specified period of parking has been given and repeat the information in that notice as required”.
ANPR Ltd. have failed to meet this requirement as the details on the notice to driver are not repeated in notice to keeper as they are inconsistent as follows:

Registration of vehicle
Time of alleged offence
Date of alleged offence
Location of alleged offence

Therefore the notice to keeper is flawed as it fails to repeat the information in the notice to driver. As ANPR Ltd. have failed to comply with POFA 2012, this point now renders the keeper not liable for the supposed charge.

I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

6.4 Detailed location of the vehicle – Notice to Driver

Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 states that a notice to driver must include a detailed location of the vehicle - the listed location is 'XXXX'. This is not a detailed or accurate description of the exact location. Furthermore, the location as written on the PCN does not exist at all.

6.5 Detailed location of the vehicle – Notice to Keeper

Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 states that a notice to keeper must include a detailed location of the vehicle - the listed location is 'XXXX'. This is not a detailed or accurate description of the exact location. Furthermore, the location as written on the notice to keeper does not exist at all and is not the same as the location written on notice to driver. Therefore the information as required to be repeated in the notice to keeper as is in the notice to driver, in this case the location, has not been as it is inconsistent and therefore this renders the keeper not liable for this supposed charge.

6.6 Failure to meet requirements as set out in POFA 2012

Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012, states that the PCN must include details of why the ticket was issued. The supposed offence is listed on the PCN as 'parked in an area that should be kept clear at all times'. I submit that there is no signage indicating that the supposed area should, in fact, be kept clear at all times (photo attached), thus the ticket was wrongly issued.

7. (......)
To which I must ask, if ANPR Ltd. “thought the Code had already been sent out” why are they continuing to seek payment for the alleged offence? This is further breach of code of practice as during an appeal, no payment must be sought.
I therefore respectfully request that POPLA report this operator, ANPR Ltd. as advised in the POPL Annual Report 2013, “Operators may be reported to the British Parking Association by the Lead Adjudicator for an apparent breach by an operator of the BPA Code of Practice.”

Thanks to everyone in advance!

Umkomaas

I think I would do one crystallising paragraph at the end of appeal section 6 to say that in view of the listed significant and multi 'failures' above the NtK is wholly non-compliant with the requirements of PoFA 2012 and keeper liability is therefore not established. They are pursuing the wrong person (please use these words - I've put them in twice in the advice I've given, but you seem reluctant to use them). I would also put this crystallising paragraph in bold.

And perleeeeese...... lose this obsequious pleading littered throughout a number of your paragraphs. Once at the end of your appeal is more than sufficient!

I respectfully request my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

Sophia29

sorry will do! I wasnt keen to use them as i dont want it being referred back to the driver. I do realise that popla know a keeper cant be forced to make the driver known but i guess im just nervous.

point taken on the repeated line also, saw it in an example and thought it might be good practice.

Really appreciate all your time! youve been such a big help!

Umkomaas

Time for you to bite the bullet and get this off. Tick 3 of the 4 boxes (not the 'stolen' one).

You really are overthinking this.

as i dont want it being referred back to the driver.

How on earth would that be remotely possible?

Are you going to post up those photos of the signage - it's very easy to do it?

Sophia29

Hi everyone, I just wanted to let you know that I won the appeal! Thank you to everybody on this forum for their help and time! No letter from ANPR to officially drop it as popla suggested but hey ho, popla have decided. Thank you again!!

Coupon-mad

Of course - it was never in doubt! That was so quick I suspect ANPR LTD cancelled it before POPLA even had to write a decision, in fact?