NTK received - ANPR system, Absolute Parking Management LTD

Fluff15

In addition to this, there were several photos of the signage around the carpark. However, they are missing evidence section A.4.

Fluff15

Also, I've just been thinking - they're stating that "Absolute Parking Management LTD PCN is non-POFA". Does this mean they're stumped with charges as I've not admitted who's driving and they can only pursue the driver?

DoaM

Absolute Parking Management LTD PCN is non-POFA.

As a statement it is utter nonsense. If they're meaning that they're not relying on POFA to transfer liability from driver to keeper, then unless they know who the driver is (or can prove the keeper was the driver*) then they're scuppered. Check out the POPLA Decisions thread ... someone has had an appeal victory on just that basis.

* If they try to use Elliot v Loake then you need to jump on that ... that was a criminal case with compelling evidence to show the keeper was the driver. The PPC won't have any evidence to support this.

Coupon-mad

Fluff15 wrote: »

Also, I've just been thinking - they're stating that "Absolute Parking Management LTD PCN is non-POFA". Does this mean they're stumped with charges as I've not admitted who's driving and they can only pursue the driver?

Yes it sounds like it but the statement is an illiterate load of garbage.

Use that as your first comment (well maybe not the word garbage, but what you said, that as keeper you can't be liable and they've admitted it).

Then a few other brief points about the evidence (signs etc) and you are done.

Do not reiterate your appeal, don't call this an appeal (or POPLA will NOT read it as they don't allow added stuff to appeals later). These are your 'comments on the evidence pack' which, if you keep them on point, POPLA will consider.

Fluff15

DoaM wrote: »

As a statement it is utter nonsense. If they're meaning that they're not relying on POFA to transfer liability from driver to keeper, then unless they know who the driver is (or can prove the keeper was the driver*) then they're scuppered. Check out the POPLA Decisions thread ... someone has had an appeal victory on just that basis.

* If they try to use Elliot v Loake then you need to jump on that ... that was a criminal case with compelling evidence to show the keeper was the driver. The PPC won't have any evidence to support this.

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes it sounds like it but the statement is an illiterate load of garbage.

Use that as your first comment (well maybe not the word garbage, but what you said, that as keeper you can't be liable and they've admitted it).

Then a few other brief points about the evidence (signs etc) and you are done.

Do not reiterate your appeal, don't call this an appeal (or POPLA will NOT read it as they don't allow added stuff to appeals later). These are your 'comments on the evidence pack' which, if you keep them on point, POPLA will consider.

Thank you both - I received the evidence pack on Wednesday and have just gone onto the POPLA website to comment on the evidence pack, but it currently shows as Operator Information and Evidence in progress, with no obvious button to comment on. Am I missing something, or do I email them?

Thank you

Coupon-mad

You will need to email them and tell them you have only had the evidence this week.

Please, please don't just send it without checking here first.

I didn't say anything before because it was too late (you'd sent it) but I was alarmed to see you submitted a shorter than normal, old-ish POPLA appeal without comments from us first. It was not fully based on the templates and newer POPLA wording, albeit I was pleased to see your point #2 which is important to say in a non-POFA case. Instead, you've relied heavily on the unevidenced old waffle someone wrote 2 or 3 years ago, about ANPR reliability. You must have got that from well before 2016, it's not a winning point - but luckily you might rescue this now anyway.

Do you also need to put right a date typo here (below)? Looking back at your thread you said the parking event was back in July but you didn't say that in your POPLA appeal as we would have done, would have told POPLA the number of days taken to send this PCN.

And I would have mentioned in your first appeal that the BPA CoP says that parking firms should place extra entrance signs up when the operator or change of restriction is new to a location. They admit that the signs were new just weeks before: ''(Installed June 6th, 2016)'' yet the signs do not warn locals of a change of regime at all and the aerial map shows that an arriving driver only sees two 'P' signs at the entrance - no extra warning of new enforcement. So it is possible to drive in and park with no idea about the new terms unless the car actually parked near an internal sign. A driver would not be 'bound to have seen' the parking charge and terms, unlike in the Beavis case.

Luckily POPLA will be able to see that from the NTK but it is best to spell it out, that is something to make clearer in your comments because IMHO, your appeal wasn't as clear as perhaps it could have been:

The notice to keeper is dated 30th August 2016, received by post on the 7th September 2016, therefore not within the 14-day time limit.

You are lucky they admit the PCN is non-POFA but your appeal didn't seem to say on what basis the PCN was not compliant in wording and you seemed to suggest to POPLA it was received by day nine, at least to me it reads that way, because your appeal didn't mention it was about a June incident.

So, please run your comments past us first and don't get so twitchy that you email them to POPLA first then show us after!

What do the signs look like and what does the NTK look like? Please show them here, I assume the PPC provided both? If they didn't supply the NTK then you will definitely have to point out how long the gap was between parking event and service of the NTK just to focus POPLA's mind on the facts of the dates in the absence of the evidence.

Fluff15

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You will need to email them and tell them you have only had the evidence this week.

Please, please don't just send it without checking here first.

I didn't say anything before because it was too late (you'd sent it) but I was alarmed to see you submitted a shorter than normal, old-ish POPLA appeal without comments from us first. It was not fully based on the templates and newer POPLA wording, albeit I was pleased to see your point #2 which is important to say in a non-POFA case. Instead, you've relied heavily on the unevidenced old waffle someone wrote 2 or 3 years ago, about ANPR reliability. You must have got that from well before 2016, it's not a winning point - but luckily you might rescue this now anyway.

Do you also need to put right a date typo here (below)? Looking back at your thread you said the parking event was back in July but you didn't say that in your POPLA appeal as we would have done, would have told POPLA the number of days taken to send this PCN.

And I would have mentioned in your first appeal that the BPA CoP says that parking firms should place extra entrance signs up when the operator or change of restriction is new to a location. They admit that the signs were new just weeks before: ''(Installed June 6th, 2016)'' yet the signs do not warn locals of a change of regime at all and the aerial map shows that an arriving driver only sees two 'P' signs at the entrance - no extra warning of new enforcement. So it is possible to drive in and park with no idea about the new terms unless the car actually parked near an internal sign. A driver would not be 'bound to have seen' the parking charge and terms, unlike in the Beavis case.

Luckily POPLA will be able to see that from the NTK but it is best to spell it out, that is something to make clearer in your comments because IMHO, your appeal wasn't as clear as perhaps it could have been:



You are lucky they admit the PCN is non-POFA but your appeal didn't seem to say on what basis the PCN was not compliant in wording and you seemed to suggest to POPLA it was received by day nine, at least to me it reads that way, because your appeal didn't mention it was about a June incident.

So, please run your comments past us first and don't get so twitchy that you email them to POPLA first then show us after!

What do the signs look like and what does the NTK look like? Please show them here, I assume the PPC provided both? If they didn't supply the NTK then you will definitely have to point out how long the gap was between parking event and service of the NTK just to focus POPLA's mind on the facts of the dates in the absence of the evidence.

Oops! I did think it was recent as it was from a recent appeal on the pepipoo forums, but perhaps I got the dates wrong. Below is the original NTK, with the NTK dated top right corner as 30th August 2016:

Fluff15

As below, their signage picture evidence:

Fluff15

The email I plan to send so far:

I have received the evidence pack from Absolute Parking Management on Wednesday 2nd November, in regards to my POPLA case xxxxxxxx, and wish to add the following comments:

Absolute Parking Management have stated that “Absolute Parking Management LTD PCN is non-POFA”. The operator in this case has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle, and therefore the keeper of the vehicle is entitled to appeal the validity of the PCN. As section 21.9 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice states, “it’s the driver’s responsibility to pay the PCN”. The operator has not referenced that they are attempting to transfer the liability for the PCN from the driver of the vehicle to the keeper of the vehicle using the Protections of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012), and so in its mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. The operator has failed to provide evidence to show that the appellant is in fact the driver of the vehicle, and therefore not liable for the charges.

The BPA CoP says that parking firms should place extra entrance signs up when the operator or change of restriction is new to a location. Absolute Parking Management admit that the signs were new just weeks before: ''(Installed June 6th, 2016)'' yet the signs do not warn locals of a change of regime at all and the aerial map shows that an arriving driver only sees two 'P' signs at the entrance - no extra warning of new enforcement. So it is possible to drive in and park with no idea about the new terms unless the car actually parked near an internal sign. A driver would not be 'bound to have seen' the parking charge and terms.

Fluff15

Success! Please see below a summary of my case:

Decision Successful

Assessor Name Emily Chriscoli

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant exceeded the maximum stay permitted on site.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the Notice to Keeper does not meet the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012). The appellant feels that the signage is not prominent and the font size is too small. The appellant has questioned the operator’s authority from the landowner to issue and pursue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs). The appellant has questioned the reliability of the Automatic Number Plate Recognition system.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
I am satisfied that the keeper of the vehicle is entitled to appeal the validity of this PCN as the operator has issued a notice to the keeper’s address. I note the operator’s confirmation that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using PoFA 2012 and so in its mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence we have received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal, however, as I have decided to allow the appeal for this reason, I did not feel they required any further consideration.