POPLA Appeal

Dutton1

Hello everyone,

I have been researching and reading the forum for several days now. I've read the Newbies thread multiple times and have followed the steps outlined there.

Guys_Dad

I am not going to read all of the appeal as others will comment but the 14 days refers to ANPR and not windscreen tickets. Your argument there is blown out the water as you need to be using POFA section 8 not 9.

Coupon-mad

Considering I'm already paying more than £9000 per year for my education

No you are not, nor are my Uni kids! You'll never pay it back or even scratch the surface of it. But that's another debate!

University of Sussex – Sports Centre.

I know the place...

I've sent an initial appeal to the PPC (which is First Parking LLP)

If it's F1rst, why is the POPLA draft talking about another parking company called APCOA?

Guys_Dad

Dutton1 wrote: »

Sorry, I've corrected the mistake.

POPLA appeal verification code: ****
PCN No: ***

A notice to keeper was issued on 16th May 2017 and received by me, the registered keeper of ***** on 19th June 2017 for an alleged contravention of ‘BREACH OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF USE’’ at ****

I am writing to you as the registered keeper and would be grateful if you would please consider my appeal for the following reasons.

1. Non-compliance with requirements and timetable set out in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. (ref POPLA case Carly Law 6061796103)
3. Amount demanded is a penalty
4. Misleading and unclear signage
5. Photo evidence appears doctored
6. No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers
7. No Grace Period Given (Clause #13 BPA Code of Practice)


1) If First Parking LLP want to make use of the Keeper Liability provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 and First Parking LLP have not issued and delivered a parking charge notice to the driver in the place where the parking event took place, your Notice to Keeper must meet the strict requirements and timetable set out in the Schedule (in particular paragraph 9). I have had no evidence that First Parking LLP have complied with these BPA Code requirements for ANPR issued tickets so require them to evidence their compliance to POPLA. Furthermore, the notice to keeper was not received within the maximum 14 day period from the date of the alleged breach. Specifically, the alleged breach occurred on 16th May 2017, and the notice to keeper was received 34 days later on 19th June 2017..

Which part of my previous post have you overlooked? Did you not write "I was issued with a windscreen ticket and PCN for parking at my university sports centre parking while taking an exam."

That means that 14 days does not apply to you. Please do read sections 8 & 9 of the relevant POFA legislation.

It really does your appeal no benefit if your first appeal point is factually incorrect.

Dutton1

Noted with thanks. That will be corrected also.

Dutton1

Please advise on any other ways to improve my appeal. Thanks

Umkomaas

I would challenge First Parking to prove that a stationary, highly advanced camera was used to generate these photos (including viewing direction, camera location etc.). I would also challenge First Parking that they possess the technology to generate these precise types of coordinates, as they have been applied to the photo in such an amateurish way (there are much more sophisticated ways of hardcoding photo data).

If your parking charge was issued via a windscreen ticket, then this is isn't right. This surely relates to an ANPR camera where a postal parking charge has been issued.

7) As per section 13 of the BPA Code of Practice: 'You should allow the driver a reasonable 'grace period' in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission, you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.' Therefore, if a driver stops for a short period of time to read a sign, they must have the opportunity to leave and not accept the terms of an alleged 'contract'. 90 seconds, I would argue does not breach a fair 'grace period', and therefore First Parking LLP are in breach of the BPA Code of Practice

If you say the ticket was issued during an exam, either this is a complete nonsense, or you were sitting some sort of speed test, or maybe you didn't understand the exam questions and walked out! Which is it?

You really do need to carefully read this stuff yourself to make sure it absolutely makes sense in the context of your particular case, not that of some previous random poster. If the PPC spots these contradictions, they will argue to POPLA that they should treat the entire appeal as suspect and one that is nothing more than an unfettered copy and dump from an Internet forum.

As a student you must have the intellectual, research and analytical skills to sort all this stuff out before just offloading it for others to do the picking through the debris to save you the task.

Three regulars have had to do this so far for you.