This PCN was not issued under POFA - CTT Collections

Coupon-mad

at my place of work

I would change to 'in the driver's workplace car park' or similar vague statement.

and 'Code of Practise' should be 'Code of Practice'

Good to go, I'd say, make it into a PDF and upload it under OTHER, you will see the PDF morph into a little 'bin' icon. Make sure this is showing before you submit the appeal. Don't answer other POPLA leading questions.

System

Cherry on top? The BPA report on ANPR and double dipping here

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=44279

And at the DVLA/BPA meeting on 11/03/2015

XX referred to ANPR technology where a vehicle has made multiple visits to car parks and the ANPR will be picking up first arrival and last departure. Would like those using ANPR to ensure reasonable controls are in place. XX confirmed that companies using ANPR make sure that due diligence is in place. XX advised that she had spoken to XX about this recently and they were working together on high level requirements for ANPR Operators.

So despite the DVLA (XX) getting onto the BPA (the other XX) about sorting the problem, its still there.

thegentleway

Thanks for the help guys, I have submitted the POPLA appeal.

I have also written a complaint to Chiltern Railways.

thegentleway

AOS replied today:

"Thank you for contacting the BPA and for highlighting your concerns.

Records indicate that under reference BPA-#####, the matter was previously investigated.

The parking operator has responded, and processed the appeal, and provided a POPLA code in their letter dated 18 October. As the reminder letter is dated 22 September, and was issued prior to our involvement.

The POPLA code as per the letter dated 18 October, will enable you to appeal further to POPLA and this should be done within twenty eight days. Please note that if the appeal is unsuccessful at POPLA, then the full charge of £100.00 would apply. If the appeal is successful, then the charge would be cancelled. Please note that POPLA’s decision is final and binding on the operator but not the motorist.

In conclusion, as the parking operator has taken the appropriate steps to rectify the matter, we have concluded our case.

Yours sincerely,

Joanna Barnes"

Coupon-mad

Quelle surprise, case closed.

Wolverine123

I'm glad I found this thread... i've had 3x PNC from CTT at Warwick Parkway... I've reported the company to trading standards...

each one a case of double dipping..

disgusting behaviour... I'm writing a letter of complaint to Chiltern Railways.. on each occasion I pulled into the 20 minute drop off zone for no more than 5 minutes....!

catfunt

Just seen this -

Having advised the OP to remove all identifiable info from the letter they posted up...

The_Deep wrote: »

I am not sure that this is the best advice in the case of double dipping Catfunt. IMO, it is always better to identify your self as the driver in such cases.

Why throw away a POFA-compliant appeal point? What is wrong with "the driver" in these cases?

Belt and braces.

thegentleway

Chiltern railways replied to apologise and cancelled the PCN.

I got the POPLA outcome today:

Decision: Successful
Assessor Name: Linda McMillan
Assessor summary of operator case:
The operator's case is that the appellant parked on site without purchasing the required parking time.

Assessor summary of your case:
The appellant states that he did purchase the required parking time.

Assessor supporting rational for decision:
In this instance, I note that the operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) and made reference to the terms and conditions when doing so. However, within the evidence provided it has also referred to byelaws being applicable. While I note that the PCN has been issued under terms and conditions, I find that it reasonable to expect that the motorist would have been confused by the manner in which it has been issued. Within this evidence pack, the signage clearly states, “Terms and conditions and Railway Byelaws apply…” Additionally, I note that if the operator were intending to issue a PCN in reliance on terms and conditions, its reference to byelaws could be interpreted as falling foul of Section 14 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. Within this it states as follows: “14.3 You must not misrepresent to the public that your parking control and enforcement work is carried out under the statutory powers of the police or any other public authority. You will be breaching the Code if you suggest to the public that you are providing parking enforcement under statutory authority. 14.4 You must not use terms which imply that parking is being managed, controlled and enforced under statutory authority. This includes using terms such as ‘fine’, ‘penalty’ or ‘penalty charge notice’.” Having considered this appeal, I acknowledge that the reference to byelaws within the evidence pack could lead a motorist to believe that the “enforcement work is carried out under statutory powers of the police or any other public authority.” Additionally, Section 22.1 of the BPA Code of Practice states: “Under the Code you must have procedures for dealing fairly, efficiently and promptly with any communication from the motorist”. Based upon the evidence provided, I am not satisfied that I can confirm whether the PCN was issued under terms and conditions or byelaws. This is because the signage on site makes reference to PCN being issued under terms and conditions and byelaws, this is not clear and does not illustrate to motorist what parking restrictions are for terms and conditions. As I cannot confirm whether the terms and conditions of the site had been breached I conclude the PCN was issued incorrectly.

Thank you for all your help!

beamerguy

thegentleway wrote: »

Chiltern railways replied to apologise and cancelled the PCN.

I got the POPLA outcome today:

Decision: Successful
Assessor Name: Linda McMillan
Assessor summary of operator case:
The operator's case is that the appellant parked on site without purchasing the required parking time.

Assessor summary of your case:
The appellant states that he did purchase the required parking time.

Assessor supporting rational for decision:
In this instance, I note that the operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) and made reference to the terms and conditions when doing so. However, within the evidence provided it has also referred to byelaws being applicable. While I note that the PCN has been issued under terms and conditions, I find that it reasonable to expect that the motorist would have been confused by the manner in which it has been issued. Within this evidence pack, the signage clearly states, “Terms and conditions and Railway Byelaws apply…” Additionally, I note that if the operator were intending to issue a PCN in reliance on terms and conditions, its reference to byelaws could be interpreted as falling foul of Section 14 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. Within this it states as follows: “14.3 You must not misrepresent to the public that your parking control and enforcement work is carried out under the statutory powers of the police or any other public authority. You will be breaching the Code if you suggest to the public that you are providing parking enforcement under statutory authority. 14.4 You must not use terms which imply that parking is being managed, controlled and enforced under statutory authority. This includes using terms such as ‘fine’, ‘penalty’ or ‘penalty charge notice’.” Having considered this appeal, I acknowledge that the reference to byelaws within the evidence pack could lead a motorist to believe that the “enforcement work is carried out under statutory powers of the police or any other public authority.” Additionally, Section 22.1 of the BPA Code of Practice states: “Under the Code you must have procedures for dealing fairly, efficiently and promptly with any communication from the motorist”. Based upon the evidence provided, I am not satisfied that I can confirm whether the PCN was issued under terms and conditions or byelaws. This is because the signage on site makes reference to PCN being issued under terms and conditions and byelaws, this is not clear and does not illustrate to motorist what parking restrictions are for terms and conditions. As I cannot confirm whether the terms and conditions of the site had been breached I conclude the PCN was issued incorrectly.

Thank you for all your help!

Well done, could you please now post this in the POPLA thread at the top of the main forum so others can see

thanks

thegentleway

Done.

I love beamers, have an e46 330Ci