Help With PCN Please (Unclear Signage)

Coupon-mad

Yes that's fine, leave the annotations in red like that. Once you have finished the appeal you'll be saving it as a PDF and attaching it under 'other' on the POPLA website so the red notes won't be thrown out by any formatting glitches and will be perfectly ckear to the Assessor.

Apollo18

Thanks so much for all your help Coupon-mad. I sent the appeal in today and will let you know the outcome.

Apollo18

I was wondering what the next step would be now I've sent in the POPLA appeal? They request evidence from the PCC and we both have the opportunity to rebut each other's evidence? I was wondering how long the process takes because I am in Brazil until the end of the first week of April and won't get to see their evidence until I get home if they send it by post. Is it possible to get an extension of time from POPLA in such circumstances?

Redx

I doubt that popla will look at it for about 5 to 8 weeks, so I doubt that you will hear by 08 april for example, especially as its easter at the end of the month, so it could be many weeks yet

when you get their evidence pack, you normally have about a week to send in a rebuttal

Apollo18

Thanks. That gives me plenty of time then.

Apollo18

I received the evidence pack via email yesterday. I am still in Brazil until Monday evening so unable to redact anything so will only send that information without personal info (which is the majority of it anyway).

Apollo18

Hopefully this link works ok:

http://s1168.photobucket.com/user/phlpjns/library/

Coupon-mad

Submit your comments on the POPLA portal (log in with that password POPLA sent you after appeal) if this fits:

- Wing has failed to show a true copy of either the PCN attached to the vehicle or a Notice to Keeper. A misleading 'NTO' letter from a debt collector is not a compliant Notice to Keeper. It cannot be concluded that the PCN was correctly given in the absence of such basic evidence.

- They admit: ‘it is correct that keeper liability does not exist on local authority property’ and ‘the operator has at no time ever sought to rely upon keeper liability’. So, they admit that I cannot be liable in law.

- they protest ‘POPLA cannot decide an appeal based on keeper liability not being proved in cases where keeper liability does not exist’. They are wrong. POPLA does consistently take that view, of course, as has been found in other cases of ‘not relevant land’, e.g. Luton Airport, as found by POPLA Assessor Lauren Bailey, in case 0513085036 on 07/03/2016 where it was held the keeper was not liable: ‘’I do not consider that any other person than the driver of the vehicle can be pursued for the parking charges currently outstanding in relation to this parking event’’. As in that case, I am ONLY appealing as the keeper and the driver has never been identified, so POPLA cannot find me liable.

- I cannot be held liable under ‘driver liability’ either. It cannot ever be ‘assumed’ that a registered keeper was driving and the reason my POPLA appeal is stronger is because I researched the issue, as is my right. There is no evidence nor admission of the driver and no obligation to name that person. A registered keeper cannot be told to name the driver or be forced to pay for a charge that remains in law, ONLY the alleged liability of an unidentified driver.

- Wing call it 'a fact' that some signs were obscured by leaves and concede that these would be unreadable from ‘some angles’ and they show a sign on a wall, far left of the entrance barrier - as far away from the eyeline of a driver as they could have placed it - and there is no evidence of how the terms about £100 'charge' could be read from a driver’s seat. In fact, the terms must be readable before parking, afterwards is too late (authority: Olley v Marlborough Court [1949] 1 KB 532) where it was held that a contract had already been made by the time the claimant may have seen a notice. It did not therefore form part of the contract: http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Olley-v-Marlborough-Court.php

- Image 4 is described ‘close up photo of permit on display’. So Wing admit there was a permit on display then! And the photo does show a white square inside the windscreen. The PCN said 'no permit' so was not properly given. I rest my case.

Apollo18

Thank you so much for this Coupon-mad.

Unfortunately the rebuttal only fits up to paragraph 5, up to "....£100 charge"
I have had a look at what could be taken out but it all seems relevant. Is there another way to be able to submit all of it (e.g. via email)? Or am I able to submit half of it through the website and then go back and submit the other half (or does it only allow one submission)?

Thanks again for all your help with this.

p.s. just looking through the evidence pack and they have provided a close up of the Tower Hamlets permit - not sure that this matters to the point you were making though that the reason given for the PCN being issued was for "no parking permit"

p.p.s. the email from POPLA given me 7 days to respond was sent to me at 7.21pm last Friday so am I correct to assume I have until 7.20pm today to submit my comments?

Coupon-mad

Yes, email them.