POPLA appeal rejected - advice about what to do next?

RHead

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.

They produced two time stamped pictures was all (the second one was so dark the make of the car can hardly be made out let alone the number plate)

Ricky Powell (Assessor) concludes;

'On the balance of probabilities, I find that the ANPR cameras at the site were functioning correctly on the day of the alleged contravention. The Appellant has submitted that there may have been two visits which were recorded as one by the ANPR camera. However, the Appellant, as registered keeper, can provide no evidence one way or the other as to whether the driver entered and exited the site more than once. On all of the evidence before me, I find that it is more likely than not the driver entered and exited the site only once.'

i.e. he has placed the burden of proof on me to show that there were two visits rather than on them to show there weren't.

I've written to POPLA via the enquiries@popla.org.uk letting them know I wish to complain on the grounds you have suggested and will post again when they have replied

Umkomaas

Not sure how the PPC could prove that there weren't two visits - they can't prove a negative. They've 'proved' there was only 'one visit' by showing entry and exit photos/timings.

Double-dipping is one of those appeal points where the motorist is going to have to submit evidence of the double-dip.

RHead

My letter of complaint

---

Dear Sirs

Reference: xxx

I have today received the following ruling about an appeal to POPLA

I wish to complain about this decision and have it overturned as it based on the finding that the Notice to Keeper from CP Plus is compliant with the pertinent regulations when this is factually incorrect.

Firstly the Notice to Keeper does not specify the outstanding parking charges unpaid by the driver as at the day BEFORE the issue of the parking charge notice

Secondly, the burden of proof is on CP Plus to prove that the driver did not visit the parking area twice (through constant CCTV images for the period) and not on the driver to demonstrate this

Please note therefore that I wish to challenge this decision and ask for my appeal to be upheld.

Yours sincerely

---

Their reply - received just now - knocked back as Coupon-mad said would happen

"Thank you for your communication about the Assessor’s decision in the above matter.

I have to tell you that the Assessor’s decision is final.

In order to avoid any further action by the operator, payment of any amounts owed should now be made without delay. Details of how to pay will appear on previous correspondence from the operator.

Kind Regards

POPLA Administration Team"

---

Would be grateful for any advice about how to escalate this to the Lead Adjudicator please?

Thanks

ManxRed

I would drop the argument about the double visit. As Umkomaas says they cannot prove a negative. If you were alleging that there WAS a double visit then you could submit a witness statement (or some other evidence) showing the driver was somewhere else in the intervening time. If you're just stating 'they can't prove it wasn't a double visit' then you're on weak ground in my opinion.

They only have to prove 'on the balance of probabilities', not 'conclusively'. Your witness statement would tip that balance the other way, but if that wasn't the case here then let it go.

Focus on the non-compliant Notice to Keeper.

RHead

ManxRed wrote: »

I would drop the argument about the double visit. As Umkomaas says they cannot prove a negative. If you were alleging that there WAS a double visit then you could submit a witness statement (or some other evidence) showing the driver was somewhere else in the intervening time. If you're just stating 'they can't prove it wasn't a double visit' then you're on weak ground in my opinion.

They only have to prove 'on the balance of probabilities', not 'conclusively'. Your witness statement would tip that balance the other way, but if that wasn't the case here then let it go.

Focus on the non-compliant Notice to Keeper.

Thanks - will do that

Just to check - am I right in thinking that this is with reference to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 you linked up earlier?

ManxRed

Yes. Google Schedule 4 Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. It details the requirements on the operator in order to pursue the keeper. As CM says, we know that CP Plus's Notice to Keeper fails, and POPLA know this too - reference the case in hoohoo's link in post #21 to demonstrate that they already know this.

I'm not au fait with the process for escalating a POPLA complaint so wait for someone to advise on what the next step is (following the initial rejection you've received).

Coupon-mad

And no need to tell us when you get the standard 'fob off' from POPLA! Reply and insist the Assessor failed to consider the NTK properly and cite the case posted by hoohoo and the fact you DID point out the ways in which the NTK is not compliant, as fact. Escalate the complaint to the Lead Adjudicator.

RHead

Interesting turn of events on this one

I wrote to the company that CP Plus were acting for asking for a list of their MSAs as I wanted to make sure they knew of my intention never to use their service stations again

Got an email back asking for the PCN reference and any receipts I may have so they could look into it

I gave them the number and explained that whilst I had used their facilities I did not keep receipts as had no idea these would ever be needed,

Got the following response
_________________

"I have reviewed your Parking Charge Notice of xxxx and I am pleased to advise that on this occasion on the grounds of reasonableness I am happy to arrange a reduction in your charge to £​25​ which is the normal parking fee of £2​0​ plus a £5 administration charge.

Please note that the reduced charge of £25​ must be paid within (14 days) of the date of this letter. Failure to do so will result in the original charge being reinstated. Payment can be made to CP Plus on-line or by phone – https://www.cp-plus.co.uk/pay-appeal-pcn or 0844 371 8784. If you are able to forward any receipts of your purchases from our ​Northampton​ service area, I will of course review your PCN."
_________________

I am still waiting for a response to my demand that the Lead Adjudicator look into the original PCN not being compliant so there was no way I was going to pay this but it did prompt me to look at my bank statements where I found that I had paid for something whilst at the service station using my debit card (this was probably fuel given the amount) .

I then forwarded a redacted screen shot of this statement and got the following reply

_________________

"I have reviewed their Parking Charge Notice of xxxxx and I am pleased to confirm that your Parking Charge Notice has been fully cancelled following the mitigating circumstances that you have provided to us.

​Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of any further assistance."
_________________

i.e. they've written the charge off

The key to this turn around seems to be in the second half the email offering me a discounted fine
_________________

"We experience large numbers of people parking at our sites for significantly longer than two hours who do not use the facilities in any way and deny use of spaces to the travelling public."
_________________

and this appears to be that they may let matters drop if you can prove you spent some money there. They did for me anyway and I doubt I'm an exception

Thanks for all the help and good advice I received about how to deal with POPLA etc and hopefully this additional information will be of use to somebody else caught in the same situation

Best

Redx

well done

this is why we always tell people to complain to the landowners and retailers (which people rarely seem to do)

its even mentioned in the NEWBIES sticky thread, yet is overlooked all the time

RHead

Just a brief post-script on this

The Lead Adjudicator has ruled on this even though the charge was withdrawn

They didn't uphold the claim that the PCN was non-compliant and I was wondering what people made of this decision?

____________________________________

Thank you for your email below.

The Lead Adjudicator responds as follows:

“The appellant has submitted that the Assessor failed to consider the notice to keeper properly. He submits that this is because the notice did not specify the outstanding parking charges unpaid by the driver as at the day before the issue of the parking charge notice so it was not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and his appeal should have been allowed.

The Appellant’s complaint relies solely on the wording of paragraph 8(1)(d)(ii) of Schedule 4 to the Act. This paragraph does not apply in the appellant’s case because paragraph 8(2)(d) only applies where:

i. The operator had issued a notice to the driver of the vehicle before the notice to keeper in accordance with paragraphs 6(1)(a) and 7(2). The first notice in this case was instead issued directly to the keeper of the vehicle in accordance with paragraph 6(1)(b);


ii. The unpaid parking charge has been paid in part. The full amount remained outstanding in the appellant’s case which is unsurprising as the first notice issued was to the appellant as the registered keeper.


It is the provisions of Paragraph 9 which applied in the appellant’s case and these did not require that the notice specify the amount unpaid by the driver as at the day before the issue of the parking charge notice.

Consequently, the Assessor’s finding in the appeal that the parking charge notice complied with the provisions in the 2012 Act was correctly made and the appeal was properly refused.

The appellant may have been confused by what he read on the internet but unfortunately such information is not always accurate and, in any event, no two cases are ever identical.”

Kind regards,

POPLA Administration Team.

____________________________________