J-D--P-a-r-k-i-n-g--C-o-n-s-u-l-t-a-n-t-s--PCN

Redx

looks like a debt recovery TEMPLATE response due to it saying MY FINDINGS and it seems to have DRP as the payment option too

as for POPLA , the Ombudsman Service is taking it over this month from London Councils, so you need to register the popla code asap

then draft a popla type appeal using the usual suspects

no contract
poor signage
NTK not pofa 2012 compliant
not a gpeol
the Beavis paragraph from the NEWBIES sticky thread

and anything else that is a relevant appeal point

Ignatius1

Redx wrote: »

looks like a debt recovery TEMPLATE response due to it saying MY FINDINGS and it seems to have DRP as the payment option too

as for POPLA , the Ombudsman Service is taking it over this month from London Councils, so you need to register the popla code asap

then draft a popla type appeal using the usual suspects

no contract
poor signage
NTK not pofa 2012 compliant
not a gpeol
the Beavis paragraph from the NEWBIES sticky thread

and anything else that is a relevant appeal point

Will do. Thank you.


So, POPLA operation is passing from LC to OSL on 1 October. For sure, I'll be leaving appeal details through their portal asap. It will be interesting to see what happens once OSL are able to register appeals.


Do you think that my stating that I have a permit could somehow trip me up? I am the keeper and the driver of the carriage. I'll probably omit such information, but will include the paragraph below:


The charge is unconscionable and extravagant and unrelated to local Penalty Charge levels in this area. It is believed that the Supreme Court’s decision in ParkingEye v Beavis will have an impact on the outcome of this POPLA appeal. If the operator does not cancel this charge and/or if there is no other ground upon which the appeal can be determined, I ask that my appeal is adjourned pending the Beavis case.

Ignatius1

J-D__P-a-r-k-i-n-g__C-o-n-s-u-l-t-a-n-t-s took 3 or 4 images with a handheld camera of the vehicular carriage and there are handheld camera icons printed on the signage, as well as what appear to be ANPR type camera icons. Image of signage:





To my knowledge, no PCN was attached to the carriage. The NtK states 18/08/2015 as the Parking Charge Date, 21/08/2015 as the Date of Notice and was received shortly after 21/08/2015.


Apparently, the PPC isn't approved to use ANPR as indicated on the BPA AOS page so it seems as though their signs are pretty much illegal and perhaps breaching the BPA's CoP.


No PCN. NtK was received within 14 days rather than 29-56 days. Have they failed to meet POFA 2012? My understanding is that PPCs must contact the Registered Keeper within 14 days if no PCN was attached to the carriage and ONLY IF ANPR was used, but, of course, the PPC aren't approved to use such equipment.

g0wfv

Ignatius1 wrote: »

No PCN. NtK was received within 14 days rather than 29-56 days. Have they failed to meet POFA 2012? My understanding is that PPCs must contact the Registered Keeper within 14 days if no PCN was attached to the carriage and ONLY IF ANPR was used, but, of course, the PPC aren't approved to use such equipment.

The way I am reading POFA 2012 Sch 4 is that the PPC does not have to issue a NTD and can go straight to a NTK within 14 days regardless of whether ANPR is in use at the site or not.

Incidentally, a quick search of POFA 2012 Sch 4 in a pdf reader confirms that neither "ANPR" nor "automatic" nor "camera" appear in the text. You might like to have a read to confirm your (lack of) standing with this argument.

I should register the POPLA code on their website now and start preparing an appeal based upon the arguments Redx lays out in his post below. Ombudsman Services Ltd will not be contacting folks who have registered a POPLA appeal until sometime on or after 14 Sept. There are bound to be a few in the queue ahead of you, so still plenty of time to prepare the appeal (but register the code NOW!)

Ignatius1

g0wfv wrote: »

The way I am reading POFA 2012 Sch 4 is that the PPC does not have to issue a NTD and can go straight to a NTK within 14 days regardless of whether ANPR is in use at the site or not.

Incidentally, a quick search of POFA 2012 Sch 4 in a pdf reader confirms that neither "ANPR" nor "automatic" nor "camera" appear in the text. You might like to have a read to confirm your (lack of) standing with this argument.

I should register the POPLA code on their website now and start preparing an appeal based upon the arguments Redx lays out in his post below. Ombudsman Services Ltd will not be contacting folks who have registered a POPLA appeal until sometime on or after 14 Sept. There are bound to be a few in the queue ahead of you, so still plenty of time to prepare the appeal (but register the code NOW!)

Thank you.


I forgot to mention that I had indeed registered a POPLA appeal.


I've just had a look at the automatic email response from POPLA in reference to a POPLA appeal from May 2014 about Athena ANPR. I seemingly checked more boxes on that online form.


"Why they are appealing:
Parked improperly
Charge exceeded
Not liable",


but I've only checked "Not liable" this time round today. I'm sure this won't matter. It could be just me, but I also feel that the text against the four checkboxes has altered slightly.

I'll begin drafting the actual appeal pretty shortly.

Umkomaas

You might want try a new tack here following the recent revelation of the UKPC time altering debacle.

Ask that the PPC gives proof to POPLA of the make, model and description of the equipment used to take the photographs. Ask that they prove conclusively that there was no alteration to the time stamp by the operative or their back office function (let's see how they prove a negative!).

They might proffer that they are a law abiding company, their operative is totally honest and neither he nor the company would stoop to such levels. (Yeh, right! :cool:). This will give them a headache in dealing with your POPLA appeal, and will be a tracer to see how TOS handle it.

Once you have the make and model of the camera, you can then check its operating instructions on the Internet as to how easy it is to adjust the time stamp. Perfect for your eventual rebuttal of the PPC's evidence pack.

tomtontom

JD Parking Consultants? *confused*

Ignatius1

Umkomaas wrote: »

You might want try a new tack here following the recent revelation of the UKPC time altering debacle.

Ask that the PPC gives proof to POPLA of the make, model and description of the equipment used to take the photographs. Ask that they prove conclusively that there was no alteration to the time stamp by the operative or their back office function (let's see how they prove a negative!).

They might proffer that they are a law abiding company, their operative is totally honest and neither he nor the company would stoop to such levels. (Yeh, right! :cool:). This will give them a headache in dealing with your POPLA appeal, and will be a tracer to see how TOS handle it.

Once you have the make and model of the camera, you can then check its operating instructions on the Internet as to how easy it is to adjust the time stamp. Perfect for your eventual rebuttal of the PPC's evidence pack.

Having just downloaded and examined the properties of the files, I find that they've seemingly removed all property details :T .. There's a watermark at the bottom of each image with a perhaps fake date/time stamp.


Law abiding company!?!? I totally agree. I found http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=68820053&postcount=8


I'm sorry.. what is TOS?

Ignatius1

Ha.. I hadn't analysed the times on the watermarks until now, and guess what? They're all identical! Idiots.


This now makes me wonder if it may have been the maintenance person who lives here in the complex whose taken the images and sent them to the PPC. This is very much possible.

Umkomaas

TOS - The Ombudsman Service, the new provider of POPLA.