We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
POPLA appeal rejected - advice about what to do next?
Comments
-
I can't read that in its current form.
Please edit it with paragraphs and spacing. It looks like the version of the bible before punctuation was invented.
It's the template taken off here with the details adjusted for the specific charges and operator plus the suggestion to put in that it was dark so the signs couldn't be seen
The submission to POPLA is made on line and that is what they sent me to confirm submission0 -
Failure to invoke Keeper Liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (the POFA).
In order to pursue Keeper Liability under the POFA, CP Plus must have met the strict conditions in the Act. However, they have failed to fulfil the requirements of the “Notice to Keeper” (‘NtK’) as per para. 9 Sch 4 of the Act which reads in part:
“(1) A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.
(2) The notice must—
(b) inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;
(e) state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper— (i) to pay the unpaid parking charges; or (ii) if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver; (f) warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given— (i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and (ii) the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; (h) identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made;
(4) The notice must be given by: (b) sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.
(5) The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.
(6) A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.”
The NTK fails due to the following reasons: The following points (A)-(E) may be observed as flaws in this NTK, making this non-compliant under the POFA 2012:
(A) The 'period of parking' is not 'specified', only the times the car was seen in traffic on arrival and on the final time it left that day. There's no evidence of parking at all.
(B) It does not inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;
(C) It fails to describe any alleged unpaid parking charges “for the specified period of parking” (a period which was not specified). POFA requires that a NTK describes any 'outstanding' 'unpaid' charges which the driver owed as at a time not later than the DAY BEFORE the issue of the postal NTK. The sum for breach of contract cannot be described as ‘unpaid by the driver’ prior to the day the NTK was issued, because it only arises and could be described as 'unpaid', if at all, at/after the time of receipt of the NTK by the keeper. The inflated PCN amount now being pursued for 'breach' should not be confused with the sum intended by Schedule 4 of the POFA, just because it is also - coincidentally, perhaps - called a ‘parking charge’. The timelines are clearly stated in the Act and it is clear that the Act requires any unpaid tariff that the driver owed before the NTK was issued, to be stated - and that this is the only sum that can be pursued from a registered keeper.
(D) It does not identify the creditor, who could be the landowner, a retailer, a managing agent, or the Operator, or another party. The fact that an Operator's name is on a NTK as the payee, does not 'identify' them as the creditor because administrative functions such as sending notices and collecting monies can be carried out by other parties, such as agents and debt collectors who are never 'the creditor'. This Operator could simply be an administrator, a debt collector only - the creditor could be any other party if not specified here. Such basic detail cannot be assumed. The creditor has to be 'identified' with words to the effect that 'the creditor is...'.
(E) The NTK fails to show the arrangements for complaints and the geographical address of the client/landowner, since this Operator is an agent . This is a requirement for all consumer contracts since June 2014, in accordance with the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regs 2013 and also a breach of the POFA not to include full details of such arrangements for complaints. The fact that some of this information may be able to be implied by a reader familiar with the legal context of parking does not mean that the NTK is compliant. A NTK is a fundamental document in establishing keeper liability. The requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA2012 as regards the wording in a compliant NTK are prescriptive, unequivocal and a matter of statute, not contract law. Any omission or failure to set out even some of the mandatory NTK wording means there is no 'keeper liability'. In this case the driver has not been identified so the charge has no legal basis to be enforced against me.
So is the above true in relation to your case, and did the information in the Evidence Pack adequately rebut this?Je Suis Cecil.0 -
Ouch - you do know not to pay though?!
We had another person lose a CP Plus one in 2014 at a MSA and CP Plus had argued that a tariff was applicable after 2 hours and so there was 'an initial loss' and the person lost.
What shocks me is his finding that the NTK was compliant because we KNOW it is not. You need to complain (twice, escalating it) to POPLA about an error because the NTK is NOT compliant from CP Plus, this is factually wrong. For a start, the NTK does not 'specify the outstanding parking charges unpaid by the driver as at the day BEFORE the issue of the PCN.'
Also how can they decide that the driver didn't visit a services twice if CP Plus have not shown constant CCTV images?
Because you raised it as a possible double visit, please show us how exactly CP Plus rebutted that because the burden falls upon them to prove.
This is definitely one to complain about but you have to insist as you first of all, will get a knock back saying they won't reconsider. We can help you to push this with a second complaint (be ready to do two!) to the Lead Adjudicator if you can show us their rebuttal please.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
So is the above true in relation to your case, and did the information in the Evidence Pack adequately rebut this?
The evidence pack has a section headed 'Registered Keeper details and liability trail' and all that contains is my name and address but no more details
The original 'ticket' says
'The vehicle was recorded parked on our client's propery at Roadchef at Norhampton North from x to x. The duration of the stay exceeded the free parking period, and payment was not received for parking in excess of the free period
Having checked the vehicle details with the DVLA we are writing to you because you were the registered keeper at the time of parking or the registered keeper has named you as the driver
In accordance with the T&Cs clearly and prominently displayed and agreed to when your vehicle parked on our client's property the payment of £90 is required with 28 days from the date of this notice
If you were not the driver please forward the driver's name and current address to the correspondence address at the top of the page within 28 days"
Does that cover the points raised in your quotes?
Seems a little light on the caveats to my eye but I'm not sure
Thanks for your help so far btw0 -
- I'd have been there for a about 3- 3.5 hrs
But did you not claim that you had visited twice?You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
Coupon-mad wrote: »Ouch - you do know not to pay though?!
We had another person lose a CP Plus one in 2014 at a MSA and CP Plus had argued that a tariff was applicable after 2 hours and so there was 'an initial loss' and the person lost.
What shocks me is his finding that the NTK was compliant because we KNOW it is not. You need to complain (twice, escalating it) to POPLA about an error because the NTK is NOT compliant from CP Plus, this is factually wrong. For a start, the NTK does not 'specify the outstanding parking charges unpaid by the driver as at the day BEFORE the issue of the PCN.'
Also how can they decide that the driver didn't visit a services twice if CP Plus have not shown constant CCTV images?
Because you raised it as a possible double visit, please show us how exactly CP Plus rebutted that because the burden falls upon them to prove.
This is definitely one to complain about but you have to insist as you first of all, will get a knock back saying they won't reconsider. We can help you to push this with a second complaint (be ready to do two!) to the Lead Adjudicator if you can show us their rebuttal please.
That's great, thanks
Are there templates for these second letters anywhere?
If not is it sufficient just to raise the points you raise or do I need to add more?
Also, can you let me know how I complain - would it be just replying to their email letting me know that the appeal had been refused?
I have no intention of paying btw unless a court orders me to
Thanks again for the advice, it is very much appreciated0 -
Of course they have, anpr cameras record entrances and exits, but sometimes they do make mistakes,
My point is that double dipping is most unlikely to occur in a MSA, in a Lidl car park perhaps when you have forgotten your card, but trying it on in a MSA in a three and a half time frame sells of fish. .You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
Well, there has been at least one case of double-dipping at an MSA ... someone was ticketed (NtK) because the ANPR caught them entering the (e.g.) South bound services, and leaving the North bound services later that same day. (The intervening exit and entry were not captured).0
-
POPLA recently found that CP Plus ntk are not compliant.
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/popla-competency-called-into-question.html
You should re-raise this with the lead assessor, and complain to the board.Dedicated to driving up standards in parking0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards