Carflow Parking Appeal

DollyDee_2

It was ParkingEye v Fox Jones 8th November 2013 for ANPR reliability.

Coupon-mad

DollyDee wrote: »

It was ParkingEye v Fox Jones 8th November 2013 for ANPR reliability.

Yep but we never, ever had a claim number for that one and it was just a one-off mentioned on a forum by the alleged defendant. Not really very useful, unfortunately.

Just to add to prjohnsonnn10, due to a recent POPLA win on Section 7.3 of the BPA CoP (in POPLA Decisions this week) you could try to pin them down more on section 7 of the BPA CoP.

You have to spell it out to POPLA Assessors these days; sadly they are often clueless...!

Say that this operator has refused to show an unredacted copy (or any copy whatsoever!) and instead are sending a statement from the land agent as evidence but that party is not a landowner either, so this is just one agent backing up another agent, nothing more. This is not proof of landowner authority under the strict terms shown in Section 7 of the CoP.

Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice requires parking operators to have the written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. Specifically, Section 7.3 states:

“The written authorisation must also set out:

a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.''

State that you do not believe that this operator's mere Agent Statement shows any of the above. This is insufficient to comply with the BPA Code of Practice and lacks the level of evidence that a copy of the landowner contract would have shown.


Do not try to write a really long reiteration of your appeal and if it were me I'd stick to just 2 things for the comments: landowner authority (as above) and signage flaws/too small and illegible for the driver in the car to be conclusively held to have known about the amount of the parking charge and/or what the ANPR data would be used for, before parking.

prjohnsonnn10

A sentence tucked away in the Carflow NTK states


'.....no appeal to POPLA can be made unless on exactly the same grounds as that made initially to Carflow...'


That's plain wrong isn't it and does that render the NTK invalid / unenforceable from a BPA Cop standpoint in the view of people on here ?


Thanks

Guys_Dad

prjohnsonnn10 wrote: »

A sentence tucked away in the Carflow NTK states


'.....no appeal to POPLA can be made unless on exactly the same grounds as that made initially to Carflow...'


That's plain wrong isn't it and does that render the NTK invalid / unenforceable from a BPA Cop standpoint in the view of people on here ?


Thanks

I think you will find that POFA only decrees what should be in an NtK, not what can not. Certainly worth drawing to BPA attention.

fisherjim

prjohnsonnn10 wrote: »

A sentence tucked away in the Carflow NTK states


'.....no appeal to POPLA can be made unless on exactly the same grounds as that made initially to Carflow...'


That's plain wrong isn't it and does that render the NTK invalid / unenforceable from a BPA Cop standpoint in the view of people on here ?


Thanks

As in theory the PPC can and should consider mitigating circumstances eg. a flat tyre (though they rarely do) and POPLA do not. I don't think that argument will fly at all!

POPLA should consider what you present to them, not what the dozy PPC thinks you should present!

prjohnsonnn10

So annoying..... yes we won at POPLA against Carflow in the CSP car park......... BUT on a technicality... they failed to submit evidence pack in time ....some mention of 21 days? First I knew of this as a hard deadline for a PPC to submit .

pappa_golf

they failed to submit , because they knew they had no case.


you mentioned 4 other cases , carflow did not want to set a POPLa "precedent" on this site


they will only attempt POPLa if the other persons knowledge is low

Coupon-mad

prjohnsonnn10 wrote: »

So annoying..... yes we won at POPLA against Carflow in the CSP car park......... BUT on a technicality... they failed to submit evidence pack in time ....some mention of 21 days? First I knew of this as a hard deadline for a PPC to submit .

That is odd, so they did submit evidence but too late according to POPLA...?!

Yet at the same time, this version of the POPLA 'brand' accepts evidence packs where they know for a fact that the appellant did not get the same pack and things were omitted from the appellant's version.

Stupid reasoning in your case it seems, but a win is a win!

:T

pappa_golf

CM I am reading "they failed to submit evidence pack in time " to be that they did not send one within the required timescale , ie: they never sent it


OP can you clarify?

prjohnsonnn10

My fault chaps - yes they DID submit a full pack but got it in apparently after this 21 day deadline - which I wasn't aware of until now