Driver liability

mjbigg

Ok I think I've read everything in the newbie sticky and I think I am on the right track.

Basically I am the registered keeper but not the driver, the windscreen ticket was slapped on the car. I received the NTK letter but it was a lot longer coming than the 56 days I believe is allowed under the PofA '12.

My appeal was rejected and I was given a popla number. Is my non liability as the registered keeper enough to win a popla appeal on its own?

Redx

you can put it in the appeal but also add the usual suspects too, bad signage, no contract , not a gpeol etc

unless you wanted to put in a popla appeal based on one single argument, as a test case (most people dont, so rely on several appeal points, as you only need to win on one)

Coupon-mad

Is my non liability as the registered keeper enough to win a popla appeal on its own?

= yes at POPLA,look:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5100155

But not at IAS appeal if it was an IPC member rather than BPA. Unfair, isn't it, a postcode lottery if ever there was one. Some car parks = POPLA route, others = no appeal worth doing.

mjbigg

Does this look ok to you guys? Any suggestions or criticisms?

All your help is very much appreciated.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am the registered keeper of this vehicle but not the driver on the day in question and I am appealing to POPLA on the following grounds.
1. Failure to establish keeper liability due to non-compliance with POFA 2012
2. The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of cost and is punitive
3. Lack of proprietary interest in the land and thus no right to issue parking penalties


1. Failure to establish keeper liability due to non-compliance with POFA 2012
The notice to keeper was sent outside the allotted 56 day time frame set down by the POFA 2012. The NTK was dated a full 90 days after the date the PCN was issued.
The parking company has not met the keeper liability requirements] and therefore keeper liability does not apply. The parking company can therefore only pursue the driver. As the keeper of the vehicle, I decline, as is my right, to provide the name of the driver(s) at the time. As the parking company have neither named the driver(s) nor provided any evidence as to who the driver(s) were I submit I am not liable to any charge.
POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw has stated that the validity of a Notice to Keeper is fundamental to establishing liability for a parking charge. Where a Notice is to be relied upon to establish liability it must, as with any statutory provision, comply with the Act.
As the Notice was not compliant with the Act, it was not properly issued and as registered keeper I cannot be held liable.
Screen ticket issued **.**.14
NTK issued **.**.14

2. The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of cost and is punitive
The charge is purely punitive and is not a genuine pre-estimate of cost. In this case there is no initial loss to the landowner, nor to Armtrac themselves. The car park in question is that of a unit of residential flats and there are no parking charges associated with the car park. It is not a customer car park so there cannot be any possible loss due to customers not being able to park. The parking space in question is a space assigned specifically to a flat in the complex and the car was parked in the space with the full permission of the tenant. There was zero loss to the landowner in this situation.
The breakdown of the pre-estimate of cost sent to me by Armtrac shows quite clearly that it cannot be ‘genuine’. The items listed are costs associated with running their business, none of which are affected by either my ticket or this appeal. They cannot add costs associated with an appeal into a ‘pre-estimate’ as it is impossible to foresee whether an appeal is going to happen. This ‘pre estimate of cost’ is clearly a punitive charge and bears no similarity to their actual costs.

3. Lack of proprietary interest in the land and thus no right to issue parking penalties
Armtrac have no proprietary interest in the land in question and I question their right to issue and pursue parking notices in this car park.
Armtrac have stated in their rejection of my initial appeal with them that the fact that their signs are hanging in the car park is evidence enough of a contract with the landowner, I dispute this and would ask them to provide actual evidence. I ask them to submit signed and dated, non-redacted proof of their contract with the landowner of the car park in question for POPLA verification.
The parking space in question is assigned to a specific flat within the complex and as such, I would also Armtrac to submit signed and dated, non-redacted proof proof of their contract with the tenant of the flat in question which gives them the right to administer an assigned parking space.

POPLA Appeal Code
Showing complete disrespect to the institution of POPLA and the appeals process, Armtrac sent me my POPLA appeal code 27 days after creating the code and left me with 1 day remaining to submit my appeal. Steve Clark of the BPA has stated that anyone who is a victim of Armtrac’s tactics in this context be given an additional 7 days. I also called POPLA and confirmed that you are aware Armtrac are doing this and was told of the grace period.
‘BPA - 06439 – Armtrac As a starting point, I will grant a 7-day ‘grace period’ for those motorists potentially affected by Armtrac that you are aware of to get their appeals to POPLA if they wish – they should refer to this e-mail when they write to POPLA please.’

mjbigg

Have requested merge with existing thread. Thank you Coupon-mad.

Crabman

Threads have been merged

hoohoo

As you were not the driver...

The parking company has not met the keeper liability requirements] and therefore keeper liability does not apply. The parking company can therefore only pursue the driver. As the keeper of the vehicle, I decline, as is my right, to provide the name of the driver(s) at the time. I also confirm that I was not the driver at the time of the parking event.