Help POPLA Appeal Unsuccessful

taroshm

hxxps://www.dropbox. com/s/b5wnfmrp38tiwmf/Parking%20Notice.docx?dl=0

bod1467

https://www.dropbox.com/s/u18qaa35111xg6n/Photo%20A.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/b5wnfmrp38tiwmf/Parking%20Notice.docx?dl=0

I can't view Dropbox whilst at work, so I'll let someone else check them out for now. I hope you removed any personal, identifiable info from them? Did you check the Properties in Word for any identifiable data?

taroshm

No identifiable data.

Any suggestions though on what can be my next recourse. As POPLA decision seems flawed, as I think based on feedback from others they have deemed the PCN as a NTK.

Coupon-mad

They can't deem a rejection letter or a PCN as a Notice to Keeper!

Honestly it seems that POPLA has got new Assessors in and not trained them. This is basic and essential knowledge, they can't tell a keeper they are liable because POPLA think they've seen a NTK when there wasn't one!

Also, the POFA says the signs MUST give adequate notice of the charge itself. That white sign is illegible even close up and the charge is not in large lettering (unlike the Beavis case) and cannot be seen on that sign at all. Did NONE of their signage evidence show the sum of the parking charge on a sign? If not, how does the Assessor suggest the driver agreed to pay £100 - how can POPLA be satisfied that a contract to pay £100 was even formed if the Assessor/appellant can't read the signs shown in evidence by UKPC?

And how does this meet the 'adequate notice of the parking charge' (the £ sum itself) requirement in the POFA?

And how is this similar to the Beavis case where the charge WAS held to be in large letters & legible?

You must complain to POPLA about the fact the Assessor has erred on two significant issues - either that or UKPC has provided more information and pictures and documents to POPLA than they did to the appellant, which is not allowed. You MUST email POPLA back and raise a formal complaint - make sure you say in the subject line:


'POPLA code xxxxxxxxxx - formal complaint. The Assessor has erred in their understanding of the POFA 2012 and regarding illegible signage'.


This is a formal complaint to be referred to the Lead Adjudicator, after which I will complain to ISPA because this decision errs in law and (unless POPLA has a different evidence pack than I do) discloses an alarming lack of knowledge about Schedule 4 of the POFA.

The two significant errors in the decision are (to quote the Assessor first):

''Upon reviewing the Notice to Keeper, we can clearly see the name of the land it was parked on, the date of the incident and it has marked the time it issued the PCN. We are satisfied that this includes the required information and we accept that this complies with “PoFA 2012).''

What Notice to Keeper was 'viewed'? There was no NTK served at all, so which document did the Assessor has viewed as 'compliant with the POFA'? Surely not the windscreen Notice to Driver (PCN) which is merely the first document required under paragraph 8 (the first of two mandatory notices). Schedule 4 says keeper liability is only possible if certain statutory condtions are met and there is no exemption to issuing a NTK if an appeal is received from a registered keeper after a Notice to Driver (PCN):

''6(1) The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)—

(a) has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8''.

and the second fundamental error in the decision is this, again quoting the Assessor:

''The operator has provided photographic evidence of multiple signs that are situated throughout the car park, furthermore the signs clearly state the terms and conditions set out by the operator including the terms for parking in disabled bays.''

Which signs did the Assessor view that 'clearly' showed the sum of £100 and showed the parking terms legibly and prominently? POPLA are reminded that the POFA Schedule 4 prescribes the signage must show the charge itself prominently:

(3) ''For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) “adequate notice” means notice given by—

(b)...the display of one or more notices which — (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and

(ii)are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land.''

UKPC have shown a photo of a pale sign with illegible writing and some distance shots. None of these show an Assessor what the notices or specific terms say. This is certainly inadequate as evidence that the £100 sum was 'adequately' brought to the attention of a driver where the car was in a bay with no sign (not even a blue badge sign and those do not have the £100 charge on them in any case so are incapable of forming a contract to pay that charge).

For consistency of POPLA decisions, even if the Assessor had made a fundamental mistake about the POFA and misunderstood the significance of a missing NTK (which is a serious matter), I would have at least expected a consistent decision about the signage along the same lines as another case in the public domain this week, in Verification Code 5963225583 where Assessor Eileen Ioannou found:

'I acknowledge the appellant has raised numerous grounds of appeal however my appeal response will focus on signage...The operator says that there are 100 signs, throughout the site stating the terms and conditions. The operator has provided landowner authority that states that there are 92 signs; this was recorded in 26 April 2014. Section 18.3 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice states “signs must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language so that they are easy to read and understand”. The operator provided a copy of the signage at the site and what it should look like along with what the terms and conditions say. Based on the eight photographs provided as evidence by the operator I am not able to establish with any certainty what it the signs say. I am not satisfied, based on the evidence provided, that the appellant would have been able to see the signage and therefore would not be able to establish the terms and conditions. Accordingly this appeal should be allowed.'

taroshm

Thanks will send them an email. Just hope they acknowledge it as it seems they don't entertain any enquiries on the decision.
Any particular email address I could send it to ensure its actually looked at.

Once again grateful for the above points.

Coupon-mad

They do, this isn't an enquiry. It's not about the decision as such, it is a formal complaint which is why I wrote it for you to copy as it is.

taroshm

Reply received from POPLA on the complaint:

---

Thank you for contacting POPLA.

When considering a genuine pre estimate of loss as a ground of appeal, we consider if the parking charge amount was clear on the signage at the site.

I have reviewed the evidence of the signage at the site and I am satisfied that the signs clearly state that "failure to comply with the following at any time will result in a £100 Parking Charge". When parking on private land a motorist agrees to adhere to the terms and conditions of parking at the site. If a motorist does not adhere to those terms, they agree to pay the parking charge amount set out in the signs at the site. I am satisfied that this amount is clearly displayed on the signs.

I acknowledge that you state that all but one of the signs in the evidence pack are from alternative sites and not relevant to this site, however, you did not inform us of this when you were asked for comments on the operator’s evidence. Therefore, I cannot consider this further.

With reference to your point regarding POFA 2012 and the assessor’s reference to a Notice to Keeper, I can confirm I have reviewed this evidence. I apologise that the assessor referred to a Notice to Keeper and I can confirm that a Notice to Keeper was not sent to POPLA.

After reviewing the evidence, it is clear that the operator is pursuing the driver for the payment. As a Notice to Keeper was not sent to you within the correct period, it is evident that the operator did not intend to transfer liability to the driver. As such, the operator is not required to meet the conditions of PoFA 2012. Therefore, your appeal would not have been allowed on this ground.

As the decision has been made, it is the end of our process and there is no opportunity to appeal.

Yours sincerely

Lauren Bailey

POPLA Assessor

salmosalaris

"It is clear the operator is pursuing the driver .."
And what evidence is that idiotic statement based on ?
They're making this up as they go along

Umkomaas

After reviewing the evidence, it is clear that the operator is pursuing the driver for the payment. As a Notice to Keeper was not sent to you within the correct period, it is evident that the operator did not intend to transfer liability to the driver. As such, the operator is not required to meet the conditions of PoFA 2012. Therefore, your appeal would not have been allowed on this ground.

This is utter rubbish. If the keeper is appealing and no compliant NtK has been delivered (and if 'the operator did not intend transferring liability to the driver' - whatever that means??) the there is no way BY LAW that the keeper can be held liable.

Things seem to be going from bad to worse with POPLA.

Yet another one for Nicola @ ISPA.

Coupon-mad

taroshm wrote: »

Reply received from POPLA on the complaint:

---

Thank you for contacting POPLA.

When considering a genuine pre estimate of loss as a ground of appeal, we consider if the parking charge amount was clear on the signage at the site.

I have reviewed the evidence of the signage at the site and I am satisfied that the signs clearly state that "failure to comply with the following at any time will result in a £100 Parking Charge". When parking on private land a motorist agrees to adhere to the terms and conditions of parking at the site. If a motorist does not adhere to those terms, they agree to pay the parking charge amount set out in the signs at the site. I am satisfied that this amount is clearly displayed on the signs.

I acknowledge that you state that all but one of the signs in the evidence pack are from alternative sites and not relevant to this site, however, you did not inform us of this when you were asked for comments on the operator’s evidence. Therefore, I cannot consider this further.

With reference to your point regarding POFA 2012 and the assessor’s reference to a Notice to Keeper, I can confirm I have reviewed this evidence. I apologise that the assessor referred to a Notice to Keeper and I can confirm that a Notice to Keeper was not sent to POPLA.

After reviewing the evidence, it is clear that the operator is pursuing the driver for the payment. As a Notice to Keeper was not sent to you within the correct period, it is evident that the operator did not intend to transfer liability to the driver. As such, the operator is not required to meet the conditions of PoFA 2012. Therefore, your appeal would not have been allowed on this ground.

As the decision has been made, it is the end of our process and there is no opportunity to appeal.

Yours sincerely

Lauren Bailey

POPLA Assessor

You need to reply and say you are not asking for 'further appeal' but to pursue a legitimate complaint as POPLA has erred in law and the reply from Lauren Bailey has made it worse and compounded that failure to understand the law on liability for parking charges.

Point out in a short paragraph that you were only ever a registered keeper appellant, not the driver. UKPC cannot hold a keeper appellant liable 'as if they were the driver' and supply no NTK at all. In a case were POPLA cannot be satisfied that the driver was evidenced or identified (as here) the appellant cannot be held liable either as keeper or driver. POPLA is seriously in error here and the matter must be escalated now as a formal complaint. POPLA cannot jump to the very wrong conclusion that an operator 'can hold the driver liable' when the appellant is only the registered keeper.