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

Umkomaas

Ignatius1 wrote: »

Ha.. I haven'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 who has taken the images and sent them to the PPC. This is very much possible.

Do you suspect they have been doctored?

Ignatius1

Umkomaas wrote: »

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

Ahh.. I guess perhaps TOS is the same as OSL (Ombudsman Services Limited).

Umkomaas wrote: »

Do you suspect they have been doctored?

Quite possibly.

Ignatius1

I've begun to compose the appeal.

I feel that the penalty for my not re-displaying the permit is harsh. It's almost akin to one being penalised for not locking their door.

The parking enforcement was introduced [several months after I moved in] in an effort to combat "the on-going issue of multiple vehicles being allowed access onto the site without permission" and, as such, my tenancy agreement doesn't cover anything related to parking permits. The fact is that I am permitted to park my carriage here and have "peaceful enjoyment".

Anyway, would you, as part of the appeal, raise anything to do with these parking permits? Sort of appeal as RK and tenant of the allocated parking space? My carriage isn't registered to the address that I'm currently living at.

bazster

If you have an allocated parking space per your tenancy agreement/leasehold you should certainly include in your appeal that you are the lawful occupier of the land and you need no-one's permission to park there. Accordingly you cannot have entered into a contract with JD Parking Consultants because they had nothing to offer as consideration that you did not already possess (i.e. the right to park in your parking space).

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

I have little knowledge of the POFA 2012 Act.

To clarify the subject of the NTK not being compliant with POFA 2012, is one reason for its non-compliance the fact that it doesn't state what the "full charge" is [if the £60.00 isn't paid within 14 days]?

How else does this NTK not comply with POFA?

In a previous reply, I mentioned that the four images sent to me via e-mail (attached to the initial appeal rejection response) appear to have been digitally altered because all four date/time stamps are completely identical. I'm sure this breaches the BPA's CoP, so will have to write an e-mail to Steve.C and AOS @britishparking.co.uk

Signage



NTK

Ignatius1

OK, so I've read paragraphs 20.8 through to 20.16 of the CoP and referenced these with paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 & 11 of Schedule 4 of the PoFA 2012.


To be honest, I'm not sure whether or not the PPC or its NtK has actually failed to comply with the PoFA.


No PCN was received, just the above NtK.


The NtK mentions not one thing about the PoFA 2012, so, because it doesn't mention the PoFA 2012, does that mean that it can deal with its claim outside of Schedule 4 of the PoFA 2012, or are they perhaps not complying at all with this Act because their NtK is failing to mention the Act and its requirements? Do all PPC's that are AOS members have to deal with claims in accordance with the requirements?


Basically, I cannot see how they are not complying with the requirements.


The NtK, however, seems to not comply with 20.14 of the BPA CoP, which states "When you serve a Notice to Keeper, you must also include information telling the keeper the 'reasonable cause' you had for asking the DVLA for their details.". The NtK only states that details were obtained under a "reasonable cause" request. Of course, this doesn't actually tell the keeper what the reasonable cause was, but perhaps other wording in the NtK does...


Can anyone provide me with a bit more clarity so that I can see where the NtK is perhaps not complying with Schedule 4 of the PoFA 2012?

bazster

It doesn't have to mention PoFA in order to comply with PoFA.

Nor are they obliged to comply with PoFA. If they don't do so it simply means that there is no keeper liability.

This notice doesn't specify the period of parking (Schedule 4 9(2)(a)).

I can't see any mention of appeals or PoPLA. Is this on the back? If not, it fails to comply with 9(2)(g).

And it doesn't state what the charge is, only the discounted amount. So in partially complying with 9(2)(g) it fails to comply with 9(2)(c) and (d)

Ignatius1

bazster wrote: »

It doesn't have to mention PoFA in order to comply with PoFA.

Nor are they obliged to comply with PoFA. If they don't do so it simply means that there is no keeper liability.

This notice doesn't specify the period of parking (Schedule 4 9(2)(a)).

I can't see any mention of appeals or PoPLA. Is this on the back? If not, it fails to comply with 9(2)(g).

And it doesn't state what the charge is, only the discounted amount. So in partially complying with 9(2)(g) it fails to comply with 9(2)(c) and (d)

Indeed - it's a residential car park and the permit wasn't on display at the time. I'm not sure how a PPC could specify a period of parking.

Yes, their mentioning methods of payment and appeals etc is on the back.

Agreed - they're not stating what the "full charge" is and trying to recover a discounted amount at the first instance.

bazster

Ignatius1 wrote: »

Indeed - it's a residential car park and the permit wasn't on display at the time. I'm not sure how a PPC could specify a period of parking.

They don't have to specify it in terms of when the vehicle arrived and departed. My take on this requirement in the legislation is to establish that the vehicle was actually parked; many PPC's give it as "period of observation".

By simply giving the time at which the "charge" was issued they fail to even assert that the vehicle was parked at all. For all anyone knows it might've been there for 6 months or it might've merely stopped for 3 seconds whilst the driver executed a three-point turn!

Ignatius1

Ladies and gentlemen,

I've readied my appeal, but not shure what the best advice is concerning "Step 1: Grounds for appeal".

As many may already know, the options to select are:

-My vehicle was stolen

-I was not improperly parked

-The amount requested on the parking charge notice is not correct.

-I was not the driver or the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged improper parking.

Other grounds for appeal
-Extreme circumstances prevented me from parking correctly.
-Other

I'm tempted to select "I was not improperly parked", "The amount requested on the parking charge notice is not correct." and "Other", but unsure if I'll then be asked more questions based on the three selections nor whether I'll be able to go back to Step 1. Maybe it can be safer to select only "Other".

What is your take on this?