NTK from Parking CSL - POPLA Appeal won

tellytart

Am looking for some advice as I've received an NTK from Parking CSL.

When I received it, in haste I filled in their online appeal form before looking at these forums, this has now been rejected, so I have a POPLA code.

The appeal was made as the registered keeper, the driver was not identified, and the appeal stated the following two grounds:

1: The vehicle was parked in a parking space with the permission of the resident that owns that parking space
2: The parking company have failed to provide the resident with any means to identify legitimately parked visiting vehicles.

No identification of the driver was made.

I can post a link to the NTK if you can advise me what needs to be redacted, as I would like to know what grounds I should use to appeal, and indeed if the NTK is deficient leading to no keeper liability. (After reading the forums, I'm still not sure if the NTK is compliant or not).

Many thanks.

System

Parking CSL are just a paper shoveller. What parking company was it?

tellytart

The NTK references Parking Ticketing Ltd as the creditor.

Redx

Parking Ticketing Ltd http://www.parkingticketing.co.uk
is a BPA member, so its popla for you

post #3 of the NEWBIES sticky thread helps you with your popla appeal draft, so draft up an appeal and post it if you want advice and critique

tellytart

Thanks for that RedX, I've seen those posts, but am at a loss as to where to start and what grounds I can appeal, which is why I'm asking for advice. (I find it difficult to take info from one source and changing it to apply to my case).

I also wondered if I posted a redacted image of the NTK (what do I need to redact?) someone can tell me if I also have a case for no keeper liability? I'm thinking I should also try the no authority to ticket route?

Thanks.

Quentin

You need to redact everything on the letter that is unique to you. (So that the ppc cannot identify you from it - they monitor this forum

Redx

if you read the popla examples they contain sections of the legal grounds that you appeal on

in a nutshell, most of these are

NO LANDOWNER CONTRACT
POOR SIGNAGE
NOT A GPEOL (where your case may differ from the Beavis court case judgment)
GRACE PERIODS
POFA 2012 errors (no keeper liability)
NTK flaws or errors (no keeper liability)
ANPR or CAMERA issues (like doctored photos, incorrect timings etc)

anything else that may be relevant

you cannot tell us that you did not see those sections in the popla example appeals, they are almost always in them

tellytart

Here's a link to the redacted NTK.

I can't post the link, add the following to the end of a standard dropbox URL.

/s/bl7e38lbdtmgl6z/NTK-Redacted.JPG

tellytart

Yes RedX, I did see them, but I don't understand enough legalese to know if they apply to my case or not. And would my appeal be thrown out if I use too many grounds that don't actually apply?

Redx

the point is that you allege the ppc has failed on those points, so anything you query means they have to prove their case, because they bring the case against you

so you thrown everything in, doesnt matter if they dont like it , you only need to win on one point, even if you submit 6 points

you would not submit anything that isnt relevant , plus you would not knowingly lie

example - if its a free car park, you would not say the pay and display machines were out of order, so common sense

example - if there are no anpr cameras at the entrance and exit you would not put that point in your appeal, because it isnt true or valid - again , common sense

example - about p & d machines on a pay for car park (but not on a free car park because there arent any)

so most of the points I gave you go into ANY popla appeal , then you only add points relevant to your particular case , about the types of cameras (if any) that were used (possibly hand held cameras in your case although the NTK doesnt show any photos)

a popla assessor will IGNORE any points they deem not relevant , they wont throw it out, they will look at the relevant points only and if one applies they will find in your favour

clicky link

https://www.dropbox.com/s/bl7e38lbdtmgl6z/NTK-Redacted.JPG

please sign this petition to try to stop these sharp practices

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/111925

as for your NTK, cant check the dates as you redacted them , plus they demand £120 when the BPA CoP states a maximum of £100 so that is flawed and should be reported to the BPA aos email with a copy of the NTK (unredacted) - no naming the driver though

its also one point of your popla appeal too

also check if the NTK arrived between day 29 and day 56 of the alleged "offence"

if its before or after then those are additional legal points for a popla appeal

the NTK came from DRP in one of their BACK OFFICE guises acting on behalf of the PPC

so its mainly

NO LANDOWNER CONTRACT
POOR SIGNAGE
NOT A GPEOL (where your case may differ from the Beavis court case judgment)

POFA 2012 errors (no keeper liability) - NTK has to arrive between day 29 and day 56 for POFA to be valid

NTK flaws or errors (no keeper liability) - check against the BPA CoP and POFA2012

so the £120 charge breaks the BPA CoP for a start

CAMERA issues (like doctored photos, incorrect timings etc - if there are any)

anything else that may be relevant

tellytart

I redacted the dates thinking it could also identify it. However, the NTK did arrive within the time-frame you state. (day 32)