One Parking Solution POPLA Appeal

Coupon-mad

driver's perspective

andreihoff

Draft 2.0:

Please find my rebuttal below:
1. Landowner Contract has multiple flaws. Please see the following:
a. Page 1:
i. The first page is neither initialled nor dated
ii. Contact listed on page is a property manager and not the landowner
b. Page 2
i. The contract has no specified end date which is against BPA CoP.
ii. The specified customer at point 1 is a property manager and not the landowner therefore there is no contract with the landowner.
iii. There is no location listed under ‘location’
c. Page 5
i. Contract signed by an unknown third party as opposed to the contact identified on page 1 and page 2.
2. Notice to keeper isn’t POFA compliant because of the following:
a. Time listed under useful information on page 2 i.e. “within 28 days of this notice”
b. The statement “on the assumption that the keeper was the driver”. There is no lawful presumption
c. Notice to keeper and OPS summary are in disagreement as summary states “seeking keeper liability”
3. Picture of parking notice is not a real picture of a notice from the site. The picture of the sign labelled ‘OPS Sign’ is a picture of what appears to be their sign in pristine condition taken as a close up under ideal lighting on what looks like a wooden desk. There are no pictures provided of any signs at the site of the alleged parking contravention. The font is too small to be legible from the driver’s perspective. The signs OPS use at the *** site are few and far between in poor condition and hidden from view. The burden of proof is on the operator to provide clear and up to date pictures of signs at the site.
4. Photo evidence is clearly doctored. See picture ‘815180-OPS61467’ and ‘815182-OPS61467’. These images have been doctored to be black and white to hide the flashing hazard lights.

andreihoff

I won!

DecisionSuccessful
Assessor Name
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the appellant due to failure to park within a marked bay.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised a number of grounds for appeal these are: The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. There is also no entry sign visible when entering the street. This charge is incompatible with the rights under the lease - as decided by the Appeal case of 'JOPSON V HOME GUARD SERVICES' case number: B9GF0A9E on 29th June 2016, which also held that the Beavis case does not apply to this sort of car park. The driver was simply unloading furniture into his flat which is not considered parking. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the British parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. This charge is unconscionable and offends against the penalty rule which was 'plainly engaged' in the case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge. They believe that the contract One Parking have, allows for unloading if the hazard lights were on, and the driver assures you that they were. One Parking are put to strict proof that (i) the hazard lights were not on, and (ii) that the contract with the landowner, shown in its entirety, does not in fact have the common clause found in their 'contracts' that states a car is exempt if loading/unloading with hazard lights on. If One Parking Solutions want to make use of the Keeper Liability provisions in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 and One Parking Solutions have not issued and delivered a parking charge notice to the driver in the place where the parking event took place. The 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 OPS have complied with these BPA Code requirements for Notice to Keeper so require them to evidence their compliance to POPLA. They would also bring into question the authenticity of the photographs taken of the vehicle – most notably the time stamps and the black and white photos. By close examination of the photographs, they are added as an overlay on-top of the photos in the lower left hand corner. It is well within the realms of possibility for even an amateur to use free photo-editing Software to add these with authentic looking Meta data. Not only is this possible, but this practice has even been in use by UKPC, who were banned by the DVLA after it emerged.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has issued a PCN due to failure to park within a marked bay. After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that, the appellant has been identified as the driver of the vehicle at the time of the relevant parking event. The operator is therefore pursuing the appellant as the registered keeper of the vehicle in this instance. For the operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle, to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in POFA 2012 must be adhered to. The operator has provided me with a copy of the Notice to Keeper sent to the appellant. As the Driver of the vehicle has not been identified, the Notice to Keeper will need to comply with section 9 of POFA 2012. I have reviewed the Notice to Keeper against the relevant sections of POFA 2012 and I am not satisfied that it is compliant. Section 9 (2) advises that the notice must: (f) 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; From the evidence provided to me, I can see that the Notice to Keeper states, “As the registered keeper of the vehicle, you are now invited to pay the unpaid parking charge or, if you were not the driver of the vehicle, to notify us (in writing using the form overleaf) of the name of the driver and a valid current address of service for the driver and pass this notice on to the driver. Should the registered keeper provide either an unserviceable name and/or address of the driver and/or the driver denies they were in charge of the vehicle at the time of the event, we may pursue the registered keeper for payment for this parking charge with reasonable assumption that the keeper was the driver at the time of event”. However, I am not satisfied that this meets the requirements as detailed by section 9 (f) of the PoFA 2012. As such, I am unable to confirm whether the operator issued the Notice to Keeper correctly.

Opseffoff

(I can't upload image as new user):

You are advised that if, after 29 days from the date given (which is presumed to be the second working day after the date of sending), the parking charge has not been paid in full and we do not know both the name and current address of the driver, we have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from you. This notice is given to you under paragraph 9(2)(f) of schedule 4 of the protection of freedoms act 2012 and is subject to our complying with the applicable conditions under schedule 4 of that Act. Failure to pay this charge may result in enforcement action which may include debt recovery and/or county court proceedings which may incur additional costs.


I was going to appeal on the grounds that I was genuinely not the driver who you can see in the photos is a tall man (I am a woman).

The reason for the charge is: vehicle not pre-authorised

Thank you for your help

Opseffoff

Sorry I lost the top bit of my post which said:

Just received this and they've changed the wording- is it now POFA compliant?

Coupon-mad

POPLA think so, if that's the wording and it was served in time.

If you are not the OP of this ancient thread, and this is a new PCN, you need to forget the POFA and appeal as registered keeper using the template appeal in the NEWBIES thread.

Then at POPLA stage start with evidence that the car WAS 'authorised' therefore the contravention did not occur, then the usual other template POPLA appeal wording forum in any other OPS appeals in 2018.

Stop reading 2017 and other old threads. You can search & find new ones.

Are you sure yours is One Parking Solutions? Start a new thread once you get a POPLA code, not yet, this stage is just ''use the template from the NEWBIES thread'' time.

fakdeworld

Hi. Need help please. My nephew took the car from me 1/04 as he was doing some loading, due to moving out of the country.He lived in the flats next to Vantage Point(Brighton).He used the car park by Vantage Point cause it was easy access to his flat. He left the country on 2/04 for good.Back to Poland. Seriously! i received NTK from OPS 9/04. Picture shows my car was at he car park for 31 min and 5 sec.I appealed(never said who was driving) but it was rejected on 1/05. they gave me POPLA code and now i have not much days left ,so i have to do it fast, but not sure how to start.On the rejection letter they were saying ;( This appeal has been considered in conjunction with the evidence gathered by the
parking attendant at the time of the event) My nephew said there was never a parking attendant and he was within the car all the time, as he packed lots of things to the car. Any help what to write to POPLA , I will be very grateful PLEASE!!!!

KeithP

fakdeworld wrote: »

Hi. Need help please...

So that's now three times you have posted exactly the same thing on three different threads.

Are you hoping to get advice that's three times as good?

From the MSE Forum Rules:

Q. What's spam?

A. Forum users mustn't post comments more than once on the forum (the only exception is members of the MSE Team; when needed). It's called spamming and most internet forums forbid it. Where spam is reported to the Forum Team, the posts are deleted and the user's posting privileges may be removed.

fakdeworld

No ,I don’t KeithP. Any advice will be useful. It doesn’t matter if it’s 3 or 1 or more. As you can see I am new here and i need advice, no bullying replies . Thanks anyway for the attention.

Le_Kirk

Why don't you start your own thread as you have been advised FOUR times now. You won't get answers by hi-jacking other people's threads!