Popla

AIMINGHIGH123

Hi,

Sorry i know there is a lot of info on here however. I appealed a PCN from Eurocarparks twice but i didnt use any of the letters on here as I didn`t do any research. I googled POPLA appeal and found links on this website but reading through it sounds like I have done things wrong.
In both my appeals I stated the reason for entering the car park was because my partner who is pregnant was not feeling well and we couldn`t just pull over as its a red route. I saw the car park and stopped for 15 mins, didnt leave the car until she felt better then carried on. I didnt even see any signs on entering and as we didn`t park I dont feel I should have to pay. I also admitted to being the driver which reading on here is a mistake.

They have rejected my appeal and given me a POPLA code but do I have a case with what I have just said?

A123

Umkomaas

They have rejected my appeal and given me a POPLA code but do I have a case with what I have just said?

No, you haven't. But that's not what you will be telling POPLA.

The charge needs to be challenged on legal and technical grounds (not on 'your story'). So you need to spend some time studying everything that's advised in post #3 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, where you will learn about what wins at POPLA and see that there are ready-made templates to copy and paste around which you will draft your own appeal.

Let us see your draft for critique and fine tuning. Don't rush this. Read and learn before firing us any old draft that is ill-researched or not understood by you.

Don't miss your POPLA deadline.

AIMINGHIGH123

Thank you for your help. Appeal successful. :-)

Coupon-mad

Great!



Can you explain more please?

What did your appeal say in the end, and what did the Assessor's decision say (exactly)?

AIMINGHIGH123

The appellant’s case there is no evidence of landowner authority. Signs at the site are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces; there is no sufficient notice of the amount of the PCN. Signs do not warn motorists what the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) date will be used for. The amount of the PCN is deemed a penalty. Photographic evidence appears to be doctored. No Driver liability. The Notice to Keeper does not comply with the strict requirements of Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. Photographs provided by the operator are not date and time stamped.

There is a more detailed explanation but I'm not sure if I should post it on this site.

Coupon-mad

Have a look at what people post at the end (last page) of 'POPLA Decisions' - top of this forum.

They post the entire decision and it is fine. That's the place to post your decision, for posterity, in full, with a link back to this thread for people to read, and tell them on that thread, which PPC you beat (because the decision doesn't mention the PPC).

You are safe to post a POPLA decision, just redact the Assessor's name as MSE are twitchy about names.

Kat_2017

Hang on, the appeal was won based on non-compliance with POFA, yet the driver was named, is that correct? I thought you couldn't use that point if the driver had been named?

Coupon-mad

The driver was not named, were they, what makes you think that?

Also, the above post doesn't (yet) tell you on what basis POPLA upheld the appeal, that's just the summary of the appellant's appeal, nothing more. Not the decision rationale.

Kat_2017

They said in the first post they named the driver. I jumped the gun when I said the appeal was won on that-apologies, I must've just presumed that. But seeing as they're mostly won on that (from what I've seen) I guessed it was. In any case, shouldn't they not be using that point if the driver was named? Although I suppose the worst that popla can do is just ignore that part if it doesn't apply to the case.

AIMINGHIGH123

I did name myself as driver when I first appealed to Eurocarparks but that was before I read the info on this site.
Once I got a POPLA code I appealed but didn't name the driver.

Ok here is the full decision:

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator is pursuing the registered keeper for the parking charge as it has not been able to identify the driver of the vehicle. In order for the operator to do this, it must transfer liability for the charge from the driver to the keeper in accordance with PoFA. I have reviewed the copy of the notice to keeper provided by the operator. Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(f) PoFA 2012 provides that the notice to keeper must: ‘warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given – (i) The amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full; and (ii) The creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;’ The notice to keeper has not satisfied the above requirements of PoFA 2012. This is because it does not give the correct timescale for the transfer of liability. Under PoFA 2012, transfer of liability occurs after ‘28 days beginning with the day after the date the notice is given’, but the notice to keeper states ’… 29 days from the date given (which is presumed to be the second working day after the Date Issued) …’. The Date Issued is specified on the notice to keeper as 14 May 2017, rather than the date of the notice to keeper itself, which is 19 May 2017. PoFA 2012 has strict requirements for the transfer of liability and these requirements have not been met in this case. The operator has failed to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper of the vehicle. I note the appellant has raised other grounds of appeal. However, as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I did not consider them. Because the operator has failed to transfer liability, the parking charge is not enforceable against the registered keeper. Accordingly I allow this appeal.

pappa_golf

AIMINGHIGH123 wrote: »

The appellant’s case there is no evidence of landowner authority. Signs at the site are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces; there is no sufficient notice of the amount of the PCN. Signs do not warn motorists what the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) date will be used for. The amount of the PCN is deemed a penalty. Photographic evidence appears to be doctored. No Driver liability. The Notice to Keeper does not comply with the strict requirements of Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. Photographs provided by the operator are not date and time stamped.

There is a more detailed explanation but I'm not sure if I should post it on this site.

and what have the BPA replied with when you showed them that info?