Appeals Process - Errors on both parts?

Coupon-mad

bartos1976 wrote: »

Should I submit it under "Other'?

Yes, that's right.

bartos1976

Good evening, so RCP presented their evidence pack which was simply attachments of appeal rejection, original invoice, authorisation to operate and photos of the site.

Here is my rebuttal if anyone has any thoughts i'd welcome them...

Dear Sirs

Ref. POPLA appeal XXXXXXXXXX

In response to the "evidence pack" RCP have submitted:
RCP Have submitted a 23 attachment ‘evidence’ pack in support of their disputed invoice. I do not intend to address every attachment they have provided but will address what I feel relevant to the matter at hand.

In making their assessment I ask the POPLA assessor to consider the following in further support of my original POPLA appeal as submitted on 01/01/2017.

Signage – RCP have provided no evidence that the signage is visible from inside the car park, this is because they are unable to do so as there are no signs. All images they have provided of signage displaying cost, or any other information, is street/outward facing. Therefore, not only does a driver have to see the signs from a moving vehicle but the PPC are reliant on them entering the car park using access from Corporation Street, those entering from Bridge Street would not see their so called ‘welcome signage’. Furthermore the entrance to the car park does not accommodate for those entering from Bridge Street, there is only one sign visible when a driver enters from the busier Corporation Street.

Please see the following images in support taken on 23 January 2017.

(image)

This image above shows no signage visible when entering from Bridge Street.

(image)

(image)

(image)

(image)

(image)

The 5 images above taken from from inside the car park clearly demonstrate no signage. Indeed, the rear of the ‘welcome signage’ on Corporation Street visible in some images shows no information on the reverse once inside the car park.

(image)

As seen in the image above there are 2 Pay & Display Machines in the car park tucked away in a corner by the entrance. For a driver to have any chance of seeing these machines they would have to leave on foot using the same point they entered in a vehicle. However, this car park has a damaged fence at the opposite end of the machines which back on to another private car park (see image below).

(image)

Not only is there a lack of signage in this car park but RCP have provided no evidence that their supposed terms and conditions are displayed anywhere on site, once again this is because they aren’t. RCP appear to be relying on delivering the graphic designs of their terms and conditions in JPEG format after the event when they rejected an initial appeal and again at POPLA stage. I don’t consider it necessary to provide you with the image they have provided, as you will no doubt have this in their evidence pack.

Finally, RCP have provided no evidence relating to where the vehicle was parked in relation to any signs they claim are in the car park or the 2 P&D machines that are tucked away in a corner.

I continue to rely on my original submissions but request this additional information be considered following receipt of RCP’s evidence pack.

In light of the evidence submitted I respectfully request that this appeal must be allowed.

Regards

Topcat_147

Hope you don't mind but I have used some of your points in a complaint I am making to BPA and DVLA. Your POPLA appeal is very good

bartos1976

No problem Topcat and thanks for your comment but it is only with the help of this great forum that I was able to put these together.

An additional question for those that read my rebuttal, is it worth putting something in about the operator using photos from well before the alleged incident took place? The signage they provided even has old prices on to what they are today, in fact there are further discrepancies for the price they charge to park in the images they have provided.

Personally I think the images I have provided showing more recent photo's will be sufficient but would welcome anyone else's thoughts on this

Coupon-mad

Hi bartos1976:

- yes I would add discrepancies that the signs they show are the old prices

- you will have to email this rebuttal if you want to attach photos (but beware POPLA might consider this as adding more evidence which isn't allowed). Wouldn't be too worried though - no NTK is surely the killer, did they not even say anything about keeper liability/the POFA?

bartos1976

Hi CM thanks, I did it this way after treading the sticky thread. If I don't get this decision and they reject my additional information after receiowpt of their evidence pack I will complain to POPLA because in my opinion I'm only addressing the evidence they have provided and not really adding anything new.

They haven't provided anything other than 23 attachments that I mention unless they have but not sent everything?

One thing I forgot to mention is they sent, or rather TNC credit solutions sent a collection letter which I'm assuming acts as a NTK but this is only in the last few days and after the 56 day period. I contacted RCP who told me they've advised them to stop chasing pending this outcome. Is this something else I should address in my rebuttal?

Coupon-mad

TNC credit solutions sent a collection letter which I'm assuming acts as a NTK but this is only in the last few days and after the 56 day period. I contacted RCP who told me they've advised them to stop chasing pending this outcome. Is this something else I should address in my rebuttal?

Yes.

If it is headed 'Notice to Keeper/Owner' or similar, tell POPLA that it arrived fatally late after 56 days and is non-compliant anyway (do not send them a a copy, let POPLA guess what it looks like).

If it is just a random debt collector letter, mention it in the rebuttal and point out this is a breach of the DPA and the BPA CoP as well.

Nice one - you are now in a position, once this is won, to sue under the DPA for the PPC sharing and continuing to process your data at a time when the BPA CoP demands they 'stop work' on the case while at POPLA. Pass go and collect £250 (hopefully) later in 2017!

bartos1976

Really? Good stuff, I shall check the letter when I get home and add something in the rebuttal. I'm pretty sure it's just a random debt collection letter though

Once I've sent my rebuttal I'll dedicate some time claiming damages for DPA breach.

bartos1976

Ok so it's headed 'Notice to Keepe or Hirer' in the top right.

It is dated more than 2 weeks after I lodged POPLA appeal and stated 'TNC Parking Services have obtained details from DVLA using a 'reasonable cause request'..

Is this allowed considering they didn't issue the PCN? They're quick to point that out stating they don't accept appeals for that reason.

All I can think here is RCP have an agreement with TNC to do the chasing if they don't receive payment and have handed my details to them without checking where they are in the appeals process?

How does this affect my claim for DPA breach CM? I'm assuming it won't as the agreement with the landowner is with RCP?

Anyway I'll update my rebuttal and get it in for now as that needs to be there either tomorrow or Friday, I'll place comments on their online portal stating rebuttal sent as an email

bartos1976

Please to report an allowed appeal on No Keeper Liability

So now do I go after them for TNC sending me a NTK after the deadline when they weren't the ones who issued the original ticket?