Ncp anpr

Coupon-mad

That's all I ever put when I do POPLA appeals.

greg2424

Should I check the box that says "Appealing on someone elses behalf"? Is this a trick to try and get you to admit to being the driver?

nosferatu1001

No, you are appealing as the keeper, not on behalf of the keeper.

Coupon-mad

greg2424 wrote: »

Should I check the box that says "Appealing on someone elses behalf"? Is this a trick to try and get you to admit to being the driver?

Nope, I never even do that when I appeal on someone's behalf! I appeal ''as them, the keeper''.

greg2424

Thanks everyone for the help and support..... Letter submitted yesterday..... Fingers crossed they see it my way!

greg2424

I received the response from NCP.

1) They only addressed one part of my claim (unclear signage)
2) They incorrectly assumed I mistook two car parks for one, when I didn't (and is clear in my own appeal letter/map that my own view is the same as theirs in terms of the map of the car park/surrounding roads.
3) They refer to me as the "motorist", not sure this is relevant or significant?
4) Most importantly, they have blatantly placed a temporary barrier in front of the ANPR signs I had claimed was obscured by a vehicle, a barrier which is clearly not present in my own photographs.

Do I need to make these comments on the POPLA claim, or just leave it?

waamo

I would point it out to POPLA. The easier you make it for the assessor the less likely they are to overlook something.

greg2424

I wrote the following:

1) They have only addressed one of four appeals (unclear signage). The Operator assumes that the motorist walked up to a ticket machine rendering the signage "clear", when photos I submitted as evidence are taken from the "point of view" from the vehicle on the day during the route taken. Photos provided by the Operator are taken by someone stood close up to the signs, whereas evidence I submitted are from a point of view from the road that leads through the car park. I assume from this that the operator does not wish to dispute my other points?
2) They incorrectly assume I refer to two car parks as opposed to one on my appeal. It is clear in my own map that the motorist entered the TS car park from the CS entrance, the Operator incorrectly assumes I am referring to the CS car park when I was in fact referring to the entrance.
3) Crucially, the photo provided by NCP on the foot of page 22 shows a different picture to my own evidence submitted on page one of my appeal. Their picture taken from a similar angle and distance shows a 'barrier' in front of the ANPR sign I alleged was obscured by a vehicle on the day in question. This barrier is clearly not present in my own photographs. The picture I took for evidence has the timestamp of ‎12 ‎September ‎2017, ‏‎07:50:30 and this is shown on the file I sent you. Have they disclosed the time of the same picture on the bottom of page 22?
4) Several pictures disclosed by NCP are irrelevant as they show signage as if the motorist was entering the car park from the TS entrance. I have already made it clear in my own claim that the motorist would have been approaching this signage "from behind". Looking at their map, it is clear to me that all signs from A-L would not have been close enough proximity to the driver at any point to read from where the vehicle was shown as being stationary/waiting on my own appeal map, or at 'driving speed' upon exit, or from the drivers' angle.

Redx

the main issues to look at are contracts , signage and paperwork peoblems like NTK faiulures or POFA2012 failures etc

so check for those and add anything missing , then save as a pdf with any evidence you have like pics etc , and email back to popla attaching the PDF

then phone popla and ensure the rebuttal is added to the file

they usually give you 7 days to do this

greg2424

Decision came back as successful:

While the appellant has raised a number of grounds for appeal, my report will focus on whether the operator has authority to operate on the land. Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) code of practice requires operators to own the land or to have written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. As the operator has failed to provide any evidence in response to this ground of appeal, it has failed to prove that it has the required authority to operate on the land in question. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.

I will post on the decisions thread.