PCN envelope on car but no ticket inside!

Bexter8

Also, just to make sure - I should select both the "I was not improperly parked" as the full 3 hours was paid for (according to the massive sign) as well as "I was not the driver or the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged improper parking." as I wasn't the driver - but it seems to want evidence to that effect and I can't prove I wasn't the driver.

Select
You bought the vehicle after the alleged improper parking.
You sold the vehicle before the alleged improper parking.
You hired a car, but were not the hirer at the time of the alleged improper parking.
You were not the driver at the time of the alleged improper parking.
You provided the driver's details, but the parking company continued to pursue you.
Supporting evidence may include

Evidence confirming the date the car was purchased or sold
Evidence that someone else was driving the car at the time of the alleged improper parking

Bexter8

Arrrggghhh, I'm sorry but I'm finding this so hard, I don't know whether I should send the photo of the ticket (which proves that £3 was paid but also shows the time expired at 2 hours - this wasn't noticed by the driver as she just paid £3 as that's what the sign said and put the ticket in the car.) along with the photo of the sign stating £1 per hour? I know the sticky newbies thing says I don't have to answer so should I just be selecting I was not the driver and not mention the parking being within the time except in my letter (linked above).

I don't want to blow it now after stressing about it so much and spending hours working out the letter and everything I can appeal based on!

Coupon-mad

Bump again...needs some views tomorrow.

Umkomaas

I think I'm done. Could someone please give it a quick once over before I send? Thank you so much.

Here goes after a skim read through.

Non-compliance with Paragraph 9
(2)(h) identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made;
The creditor was not identified.

I think I'd add in here that just because the NtK comes on PPC letterhead, it does not necessarily mean that they are 'the creditor' who could just as easily be the landowner, the site's managing agent or any other third party. PoFA is very clear that the creditor must be identified.

Point # 3 - The Notice to Keeper received by the keeper is not PoFA compliant. The following requirements are not as required according to POFA 2012 Schedule 4:

Finalise that appeal point 'In view of the serious PoFA requirement omissions in the NtK, the keeper cannot be possibly held liable for this parking charge.

Point #5 - Other than the large banner advertising the £1 per hour parking fee, any other sign

I'd feed in here a short paragraph on 'Contra Proferentem'.

Contra proferentem (Latin: "against [the] offeror"), also known as "interpretation against the draftsman", is a doctrine of contractual interpretation providing that, where a promise, agreement or term is ambiguous, the preferred meaning should be the one that works against the interests of the party who provided the wording. The doctrine is often applied to situations involving standardized contracts or where the parties are of unequal bargaining power, but is applicable to other cases.

Other than the above, it looks good. Nice formatting too.

Convert to a .pdf document, attach it to the POPLA appeals portal, put your reference details in the appeal portal and words to the effect 'Please find attached POPLA appeal for <reference number/VRM etc>. Submit it under 'Other'.

Good luck, do let us know how it progresses.

Bexter8

Thank you! That's so helpful and reassuring! I'll let you know what happens.

Bexter8

Submitted, fingers crossed! Thank you everyone for all your help!

Bexter8

I've now been asked for comments within 7 days, they are claiming the banner was gone at the time the ticket was received which is a lie. I have a photo taken on that date. They have also submitted 28 documents which I haven't looked at yet!

"The appellant entered into a contractual agreement upon parking on site. The terms are laid out on the signage and state that vehicles must clearly display a valid pay and display ticket. By parking on the land at any time in contravention to the above, the driver agrees to pay a parking charge.
At the time of contravention the appellant was not clearly displaying a valid pay and display ticket and therefore agreed to pay a parking charge.
The pay and display ticket has expired by 25 minutes. Grace periods are given to allow the driver opportunity to leave the car park however after 25 minutes there was still no attempt from the driver to leave.
It is the drivers responsibility to ensure they are parked in accordance with the terms. The banner provided by the appellant was in fact on site some time ago when the rate was as such. However since the change of rate this banner has been removed and replaced. The appellants photo does not show this on site at the time of event. It is the drivers responsibility to check the time and ensure they return to their car accordingly. If when the ticket came out of the machine, they had an enquires, our number is on the board and we can be contacted.
See signage near vehicle. Signs are BPA approved.
Seeking keeper liability."

Redx

take apart any issues or errors in their claims on signage , contracts (redacted contracts too) - so authority to sign them and are they signed clearly ? , are they still in force ? any expiry ?

if the driver has not been named then have they managed to transfer POFA2012 liability to the apellant ? (when the driver has not been disclosed for example)

the driver may have erred, but unless they used POFA2012 to transfer the liability to the keeper (the apellant) they are snookered because the keeper would not be liable

so highlight any and all issues in their evidence pack, including failures , suppositions and assumptions

if the signage fails, say so and why

Bexter8

Does this sound OK? (My previous submission is here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/10VG_3W9LLm4TTZL-45C39hRyQ1aKruCMw9Bz3tgR0xU/edit?usp=sharing) I can't add any more attachments, only comments so I can't send the photos proving the date it was taken and I'm not sure they can get that info when the image was embedded in a PDF.

The banner had not been replaced at the time of the parking charge and was still advertising the rate at £1 per hour as per the photograph supplied demonstrating that the driver thought they were entering into a contractual agreement paying £3 for 3 hours parking.

The photo taken of the banner on display was taken on the same day as can be proved by the EXIF data in the original photo which states Date taken. A screen grab can also be provided from the phone on which the photo was taken which also identifies the date as being 14 July 2017. Additionally, another photo can be provided, taken on the same day, with the banner showing and 2 cars can be identified as being the same cars as visible in the photos provided by one parking solution. They can be seen in the same position as they were in photo 711738-OPS48620.

As previously stated, the other signage was not clear and the photograph provided by OPS showing the sign adjacent to the car clearly shows it is well below eye level (in fact it appears to be less than 30cm above ground level) and the text is not clear. Even looking at the close up image provided, 711726-OPS48620, any PCN amount cannot be seen and is therefore not clear as it says it should be in the contract provided by OPS. The text is far too small to be read clearly.

It is not clear from the contract whether it is still valid as the initial 12 months had expired, the “rolling” contract may not still be in force. Does the site contact have authority to sign the contract and are they still in charge of the site?

POFA 2012 was not adhered to with regards to the Notice to Keeper as laid out previously, therefore liability cannot be transferred to the keeper of the vehicle.

Bexter8

I need to send my comments tomorrow. Can anyone please let me know if the above is the right response to their comments. I'm not sure how else to go about proving my photo of the banner was taken that day as I can't upload any files now. They're trying to claim it's been replaced which it hadn't at the time!