Appeal not permitted Driver/RK issue

ampersand

Love that post.:j:T:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
Not forgetting the Birdseye meat in gravy........

Coupon-mad

Has the double appeal aspect been tested around here before, both the legislation and the BPA code of conduct make it apparent that is should be possible.

You mean can the keeper appeal, yes, just add the postal address and play the game with at least one point of appeal. I would send the template - they should cancel IMHO.

DTDfanBoy

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You mean can the keeper appeal, yes, just add the postal address and play the game with at least one point of appeal. I would send the template - they should cancel IMHO.

I mean lodging two appeals, one from the driver (not disclosing any details for obvious reasons, signed simply at The Driver) then a second from the registered keeper.

Both the driver and the RK have liability under POF 2012, therefore both must have the ability to appeal.

As the appeals service offered by the parking company and POPLA must be completely impartial there should be no need to disclose the drivers details at any point, it adds absolutely nothing to either appeals process.

The legislation makes it clear what constitutes a driver and what constitutes a RK. And as the parking company does not know if the driver and the RK are one and the same they must allow two separate appeals, anything less would be a clear breach of the BPA Code of practice and also wouldn't offer equal remedies under law.

BPA code of practice Feb 2014

POPLA (Parking On Private Land Appeals)

22.14 Drivers and keepers may appeal against a parking charge
to POPLA :beer:

I appreciate the the appeals letters on here offer the opportunity to possibly have the issue put to bed by the parking companies, but I'd prefer to hit them in the pockets as I can't see anything changing unless the parking rackets they run start showing a decline in revenue, one person being able to double dip into their POPLA fund can't be good for profits.

One would hope that they may reconsider their strategies if they are suddenly having to fund Two POPLA appeals rather than the usual One :rotfl:

Coupon-mad

I mean lodging two appeals, one from the driver (not disclosing any details for obvious reasons, signed simply at The Driver) then a second from the registered keeper.

As the appeals service offered by the parking company and POPLA must be completely impartial there should be no need to disclose the drivers details at any point, it adds absolutely nothing to either appeals process.

That's not true - don't try this at home if appealing as driver!

If the keeper appeals they certainly don't have to say who was driving but if the driver appeals they have to give a name and address for service under the POFA (or a PPC can treat them like a third party and not consider an appeal).

You really don't need to play this game. We already have them wrapped around our little fingers with the template appeal! Which PPC is this?

DTDfanBoy

Coupon-mad wrote: »

That's not true - don't try this at home if appealing as driver!

If the keeper appeals they certainly don't have to say who was driving but if the driver appeals they have to give a name and address for service under the POFA (or a PPC can treat them like a third party and not consider an appeal).

You really don't need to play this game. We already have them wrapped around our little fingers with the template appeal! Which PPC is this?

I don't see that requirement anywhere in the legislation Coupon-mad.

If I wanted liability to be permanently shifted to the driver those details would have to be furnished, but as it stands at present that's where the liability already lies for the first 28 days regardless of whether the parking company knows who the driver is or not.

As we're still within the time stipulated the driver has a right to appeal as that is where the liability currently rests, the RK also has a right to appeal as they will become liable going forward.

I'm simply double dipping POPLA codes.

Knowing the identity of the driver adds nothing to the appeals process, the outcome should be identical whether the driver is Mickey Mouse or George Clooney, and as such I see no reason to include that information with my appeal nor do I see a requirement to include those details in either the BPA COC or the legislation itself.

I realise I don't have to play this game but I'm just thinking outside the box a little here, I'll keep the forum informed as to my progress.

Two POPLA appeals could also be handy for fine tuning appeals, driver submits one appeal on one point only to seek clarification as to the legitimacy of that point, while at the same time RK submits a full Appeal.

Hopefully POPLA double dipping will become more popular in the future

bod1467

A keeper has NO liability unless and until a notice to keeper is received. If there was a windscreen ticket then there is no keeper liability at that time, ergo no reason for a keeper to appeal and so no reason for the PPC to even consider a keeper's appeal.

Coupon-mad

You can't double dip a POPLA code.