Successful POPLA Appeal - No Keeper Liability

stevejohnston

Hi Everyone,

Just a quick post to say a huge thank you to the time and effort you all put in to help the little man fight big money. This morning I received notification that my POPLA appeal had been successful on the basis of the Notice to Keeper is not being compliant with the POFA 2012 due to it being issued 30 days after the alleged parking contravention when it should have been issued within 14. There were other reasons I could have appealed, but I decided to keep the appeal contents very simple and specific to this lack of compliance.
In the event that it may be helpful to other motorists, I've copied the full text of my appeal letter below.

---

3rd July 2016
POPLA,
PO Box 1270, WARRINGTON WA4 9RL
Dear Sirs
Re: Verification code 9111576019, Registration XXXXXXX, PCN: FP67871
I am the registered keeper and I wish to appeal a recent parking charge from Vehicle Control Solutions with a stated allege contravention date of 10th April 2016. I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:
The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 – No Keeper Liability.
With regards to the notice that was posted to the registered keeper of the vehicle, Vehicle Control Solutions Ltd has attempted to establish keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012. However, they have substantially failed because they have not fulfilled the second condition for keeper liability and subsequently not complied with the fundamental requirements set out in POFA 2012.
The wording in the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 is as follows:
''Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle:
4(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. (2) The right under this paragraph applies only if
(a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6*, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met;
Of which paragraph 6(1)(b) states:
6(1)The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)—
(b) has given a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 9.
And paragraph 9 (4)(b) states:
(4)The notice must be given by—
(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.
And the ‘relevant period’ is in paragraph (5):
(5)The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.”
The specified period ended on 10th April 2016. The notice was issued on the 10th May 2016, which is 30 days after the alleged contravention took place (10th April 2016).
As a result, Vehicle Control Solutions Ltd has no lawful authority to pursue any unpaid parking charges from the registered keeper, and there should also be no discretion on this matter, as if keeper liability conditions are not fulfilled – then keeper liability simply does not apply.
Yours faithfully,

---

The 'reason' for the withdrawal by the operator was listed as: "Withdrawn as a gesture of good will. Please do not park there again." which made me chuckle.

Thanks again!

Steve

beamerguy

Well done, another one bites the dust:beer:

"Withdrawn as a gesture of good will. Please do not park there again."

That really is a joke, bunch of muppets

Redx

post #1 and the thread title are fiction

VCS use the IAS run by the IPC

so it may be a win at the IAS, but nothing to do with POPLA

congrats on a rare win against the moo cow gang

Coupon-mad

Redx wrote: »

post #1 and the thread title are fiction

VCS use the IAS run by the IPC

so it may be a win at the IAS, but nothing to do with POPLA

congrats on a rare win against the moo cow gang

No it's Flashpark, BPA members:

Vehicle Control Solutions Ltd t/as Flashpark Ltd

:T

Redx

Coupon-mad wrote: »

No it's Flashpark, BPA members:

Vehicle Control Solutions Ltd t/as Flashpark Ltd

:T

my apologies , when I saw it said VCS in the appeal its normally VCS of Sheffield (shame the OP did not spell it out better and did not mention it was Flashpark that lost)

still, congrats no matter which "VCS" it was, a win is a win