ECP Appeal Rejected after following MSE Advice

Loadsofchildren123

The MP needs to be involved now that the independent body overseeing POPLA has gone (ISPA?) making it a completely unregulated, answerable to no-one organisation. Otherwise it will rapidly become just like the IAS.

the_wheels_have_fallen_of

Dear Mr Gallagher


I wrote to you directly on 13 March regarding serious procedural errors that I identified in POPLA assessing my appeal. It is abundantly clear that I have concrete proof that procedural errors have occured in relation to assessing my appeal against ECP (POPLA reference xxxxx). You did not review my complaint yourself, but it appears that it was passed to another Assessor to review.


When I challenged the Assessor about your Complaints process, he clearly called out that you have none and that if I have an issue with the PCN (which is why I complained to POPLA in the first place), then I must contact Euro Car Parks. Isnt this what POPLA are supposed to be for ?!


The procedural error that I very clearly evidenced, in plain English, is the fact that the assessor has made a mistake on the law in determining that the landowner contract granted the PPC the authority it relies on - evidenced by the fact that several other assessors have held that the landowner contract does NOT grant the PPC the authority it relies on.

It must be a procedural error for an assessor to make a mistake about the law, surely? As an "appeals service" you owe me and all Registered Keeprs in similar situations, a duty of care to ensure that assessors are appropriately educated about the law, and to conduct appeals in a consistent manner. Not having trained individuals to properly and consistently asses appeals is yet another procedural error.



Again, I am going to articulate the evidence that I gave you which clearly shows that the original Assessor, Mr Matthew Yorke,

has made a procedural error in not allowing my appeal as Registered Keeper and has made a fundamental error in his assessment.



I can evidence that POPLA have upheld at least three other cases at Church Farm, Stockton Heath, due to the fact that Euro Car Parks have no standing authority to form contracts with drivers in this particular car park, nor to pursue charges. This can be referenced, as per my research of successful POPLA appeals in the public domain during the last year (POPLA references 2410986482, 2410337543 and 2413376910)


Namely, POPLA reference 2410337543, of which a rebuttal was submitted on 6 March 2017, the same date as the Appellant’s Rebuttal was successful on this point.


In addition, I do not believe that my Appeal or Rebuttal to evidence provided by ECP has been considered properly as follows:


1. The Appellant stated: Euro Car Parks have no standing or authority to form contracts with drivers in this particular car park, nor to pursue charges.


As my research from successful POPLA appeals for the same car park, within the space of less than 12 months shows, at least three POPLA appeals on Landowner Authority have been upheld which are POPLA references 2410986482, 2410337543 and 2413376910.
I assert that the evidence provided by ECP does not show landowner authority; The evidence pack in Section 6 that was provided by ECP says that the Landowner Agreement dated 26 February 2013 clearly shows “landowner authority” from Burley Developments; yet what has been provided in Figure 3 is “Appendix A of the BPA Code of Practice” dated 29 October 2016.


Additionally, having researched information in the public domain regarding planning permission sought by Euro Car Parks in 2011 with Warrington Council, it is clear that Euro Car Parks do not have any landowner authority to form contracts with drivers at Church Farm, Stockton Heath nor to pursue charges. I quote from Euro Car Parks’ original planning application:


“The site is the car park for Church Farm Retail Park which has a number of retail shops and restaurants around the car park. The site is managed by Burley Development Group. The ANPR will be used to monitor any entry and exit to the site. This information will be used to see the flow of traffic within the car park and allow retailers to identify busy shopping periods. It will also be used as a security measure to monitor vehicle registrations.”


I have now complained to the DVLA as Euro Car Parks have no landowner or legal authority to pursue charges at this car park and a Breach of the Data Protection Act has occurred which I have complained to the DVLA for breach of Kadoe Contract.


I have also complained to the Landowner, Burley Developments, that Euro Car Parks have no standing to issue or pursue charges at this car park and I have also reported Euro Car Parks to Warrington Borough Council as Euro Car Parks are in breach of planning permission.

2. The Appellant Stated: Other Inaccuracies in the Evidence Pack provided by ECP

Mr Yorke makes no acknowledgment or reference to the points raised in my Rebuttal and has not answered them. Therefore, I reassert:


Section 1 – Case Summary and Rule Conditions
The Appellant’s name is spelt incorrectly all the way through in a variety of ways – clearly shows the level of lack of attention to detail and lack of checking that ECP carry out whilst putting their evidence packs together and looks to me that this is a template that has been generically applied without due care and attention.


There is an assertion that the PCN/NTK is compliant in the Evidence Pack; I have not challenged the compliance of the NTK in my original appeal. Yet another piece of evidence that shows that this document is a “cut and paste” generic template used by ECP.
States that terms and conditions of parking are maximum 2 hours from 0600 – 2159, yet further on in the document refers to the parking conditions are 1.5 hours. More inaccuracies that cannot be relied upon – which is correct ?!


States that an official appeal representation was received by Miss J Corcoran (Appellant) on 13 November 2016 – bizarrely, this is 10 days before the alleged parking offence was committed on 23 November 2016!


Section 6 – ECP Response to POPLA Appeal
This section states that Miss J Corcoran says that she was not the driver. Yet again, I re-iterate that this is false. On a number of occasions, I have said that there will be no driver liability and this is laid very clearly in my rebuttal.


Figure 3 is supposed to show Landowner Authority dated February 2013 from Burley Developments – yet the paperwork provided is from October 2016 !!



In summary, It is clear that there has been serious procedural errors by Mr Yorke, POPLA Assessor in considering my original appeal and my rebuttal and I am able to prove that other POPLA appeals have been successful for the same reasons that I raised, on the same site.

I have also complained to the ISPA about the poor performance and effectiveness of POPLA in considering my Appeal.
I understand that POPLA will reconsider evidence where there has been a clear error of judgement and/or failure to consider evidence provided, which is clearly the case.

I ask you once again, Mr Gallagher, that you review this complaint yourself and I do not want to see another generic response from the POPLA Team telling me you understand my disappointment.


Seeing as POPLA are not listening to my complaint and not telling me who would represent POPLA should ECP take me as the Registered Keeper to court in the event of non-payment, then I have no choice but to also now raise the issue of your procedural errors and your lack of due diligence to my local MP for Wigan & Leigh and Greater Manchester Mayoral Candidate, Mr Andy Burnham.


Mr Burnham will receive a copy of this correspondence to you as well as each other piece of correspondence in my file to both ECP and yourselves.

the_wheels_have_fallen_of

Ive a good mind to include this too from the other thread about a debate in government about PPCs !!!!

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-03-21/debates/382789C8-0168-4C4B-8260-0540AF83C7D3/DVLAAndPrivateCarParkingCompanies

toblerone13

What happened with your complaint? Now in a similar boat!?

DoaM

Same assessor too. :eek:

Umkomaas

I have to say that it's not uncommon for many to whom we dedicate a great deal of our own time in providing them free advice and assistance, just can't be bothered to let us know how their case developed. Pretty poor form in most cases.

Umkomaas

DoaM wrote: »

Same assessor too. :eek:

Good spot DoaM!