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

Ignatius1

I've added a section about the lack of authority from the Landowner etc.

I've also added a section reiterating the fact that all four photos taken by the PPC contain a date/time stamp that is identical throughout.

I don't think that I will try to argue that whilst one of the four photos taken from the front of the windscreen/dash tries to allege that a permit is not clearly displayed, the numberplate is also not displayed so that image from the front could have easily been taken of almost any other blue coloured vehicle.

In the original POPLA appeal, I included a section right at the top, "Lawful occupier of the land"... "my carriage needs no permission from a private parking company to park within bay number ... at .... . Accordingly, no contract with JD Parking has been entered into, because they had nothing to offer as consideration that was not already possessed (the right to park in the parking space)."

In February 2014 when the 'parking enforcement' was introduced, a document or letter was placed into mailboxes from Adair Paxton, addressed to Residents and Owners. It reads that the reason for a "Parking Control Service" to be introduced is due to the on-going issue of multiple vehicles being allowed access onto the site without permission. My bay number was written by "Your Parking Bay is ........".

I didn't provide this to POPLA in my appeal, but I'm feeling that I ought to as part of the rebuttal. My name isn't printed on it, though. It perhaps cannot harm. What do you think?

Coupon-mad

Just be careful to avoid saying who was driving (Beware of even saying 'my car, my space' because we don't know how new POPLA will view that (can't be sure they won't infer something).

Definitely point out the issues about the NTK flaws and landowner not being named. Not sure I would provide anything from Adair because that's kind of supporting the view that they are the appointed agent whereas you are arguing there is no evidence that they are.

Ignatius1

So, after originally submitting the POPLA appeal on 05/10/15, the 'operator' responded with their 'evidence pack' on 19/10/15. I provided my comments or rebuttal to it within the seven days on 26/10/15.

In the meantime, I had complained to the 'BPA' about this 'operator'. I complained about seemingly digitally altered imagery, the NtK in relation to PoFA 2012 etc. and signage. Several mails were exchanged with a 'Compliance Manager'. On 06/11/15, I received an email from the 'Compliance Manager' basically stating that the 'operator' has "investigated" with their IT having looked into it, and that they have agreed to cancel the 'parking charge' due to the error. I responded asking if the 'Compliance Manager' could go back to the 'operator' and ask that the 'parking charge' isn't cancelled (because I wanted to wait for [new] POPLA's decision). It wasn't part of their remit so I completed a contact form on a website of the 'operator's'.

I've telephoned POPLA a few times over the last eight weeks or so as I expected POPLA to respond maybe a smaller number of weeks after my comments were added on 26/10/15.

Today, I have finally received a response. Here's what is on the portal now:

"Decision
Successful

Assessor Name
Carly Law

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued as the appellant’s vehicle was parked without a valid permit clearly on display.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised several grounds for appeal. These are as follows:

• Lawful occupier of the land – No contract has been entered into, as the vehicle does not need permission to park within the bay.

• No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers.

• Flawed landowner contract and irregularities with any witness statement.

• The signage is not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice so there was no valid contract formed between JD Parking Consultants and the driver.

• The Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

• The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that the Appellant has been identified as the Driver of the vehicle in question at the time of the relevant parking event. The Operator is therefore pursuing the Appellant as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in this instance.

For the Operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the Driver of the vehicle, to the Registered Keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012) must be adhered to. The Operator has provided me with a copy of the Notice to Keeper sent to the Appellant. As the Driver of the vehicles has not been identified, the Notice to Keeper will need to comply with section 9 of PoFA 2012.

While the appellant has raised a number of grounds for appeal, my report will focus on whether the operator has adhered to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Schedule 4 section 9 (2) (d) of PoFA 2012 states that the notice to keeper must “Specify the total amount of those parking charges that are unpaid, as at a time which is (i) specified in the notice: and (ii) no later than the end of the day before the day on which the notice is either sent by post or, as the case may be, handed to or left at a current address for service for the keeper”.

Having reviewed the notice to keeper provided to me by the operator, I am not satisfied that this provision set out in PoFA 2012 has been met, as it does not state the full amount of the charge. It only states the reduced amount of the charge, which the keeper will be liable to pay if the driver is not named.

As such, I cannot determine that the Parking Charge Notice has been issued correctly.

Accordingly, I must allow this appeal."

I also posted in the "POPLA Decisions" sticky thread.

Ralph-y

well done :j


Ralph:cool:

System

their images taken seem to have been digitally altered (all date/time stamps are identical),

Drop a line to the Prankster. At the same time you may want to write to ISPA which looks after POPLA and ask that the Assessors be allowed to check the digital signatures on any pics as clearly there is an issue with veracity of some of the operators.

soton_25

Congratulations ... winning on a POFA 2012 compliance point is important given the change of POPLA provider. Registered keeper liability provisions are powerful, and they were couched with some protections for the RK by the drafters of the law. Something that IAS conveniently forget. It is good that POPLA (new) insist that the statuary requirements are fulfilled. I assume ISPA will be content to see that this is still the case.

As a true legal "technicality win" it is something PPC's could easily overcome by being compliant with the legislation, and the better operators could and should sharpen their pencil. Many won't of course.

With great power comes great responsibility. PPC's need to understand this.

System

whose taken the images and sent them to the PPC

Send an enquiry to the DVLA (kadoeservice.support@dvla.gsi.gov.uk) and ask if the JD Parking subcontractor at that site has signed and agreed the BPA Code of Practice as you have an honest belief the evidence has been altered similar to the UKPC issue. If they have, then you wish an investigation. If they haven't signed, then you wish an investigation.

Ignatius1

IamEmanresu wrote: »

Send an enquiry to the DVLA (kadoeservice.support@dvla.gsi.gov.uk) and ask if the JD Parking subcontractor at that site has signed and agreed the BPA Code of Practice as you have an honest belief the evidence has been altered similar to the UKPC issue. If they have, then you wish an investigation. If they haven't signed, then you wish an investigation.

I will do this, but my case probably isn't really similar to UKPC's deceitful doctoring of time stamps to accuse people of overstaying a free car park etc., because the car park in my case is a residential one where permits are supposed to be displayed and so it isn't a question of overstaying. I don't believe the 'operator' has actually been deceitful to gain some sort of advantage.

Nevertheless, all four photographs do contain completely identical date/time stamps.

These permits, by the way, even have property numbers printed on them! I covered mine by rotating it 90 degrees and wedging it deeper into that crevice between dashboard and windscreen. Many people around here have semi-permanently secured their permit to dash or glass seemingly obliviously advertising exactly which residential development and property number they live at!