Followed newbie guide now STUCK at appeal reply :/

Ben-XL

You guys are so good at this haha!

Thank you so much, I've responded to Parking Ticketing Ltd's evidence using the point Umkomaas made above. It all sounds solid to me, I would have loved to add more if the character limit was higher but the failure to send a NTK alone should definitely win. Still fingers crossed POPLA waive the ticket!

I'll let you guys know what POPLA come back with
Cheers!

Umkomaas

I would have loved to add more if the character limit was higher

Oh, you could have made a longer rebuttal in Word, converted it a .pdf file, then attached to an email. Let’s see whether POPLA can screw this up! :rotfl:

If they do, it’s not the reason to pay this. Let us know how it goes.

Umkomaas

You guys are so good at this haha!

And ‘gal’ - CM is a lady.

Ben-XL

Great news guys! & gal

After almost a months wait I got a response from my POPLA appeal and I was successful!
I'll post it in the POPLA Decision thread.
Thank you so much for all of your help!
You are all doing a great job here giving people very solid advice and feedback, keep it up!

Decision Successful
Assessor Name XX
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for failing to display a valid permit.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states that a notice to keeper was never served, as such no keeper liability can apply. In addition the appellant says that the operator has not identified the individual it is pursing. The appellant says that the signage at the site is not prominent, clear or legible from all of the parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. The appellant says that the operator does not have the authority from the landowner to pursue charges in line with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. Further, the appellant says the operator breached section 18.7 of the BPA Code of Practice and failed to provide a POPLA code.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The terms and conditions at the site state “PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY IN CORRECT MARKED BAYS, SEE NOTICES IN CAR PARK FOR FURTHER DETAILS”. “VEHICLES PARKED IN THIS AREA MUST PARK IN THE CORRECT MARKED BAY AND CLEARLY DISPLAY A VALID P.T.L. PERMIT IN THE WINDSCREEN”. There are sufficient signs placed at the entrance and throughout displaying the terms and conditions offered. There is a helpline number on the signage to use if a motorist has any concerns about the site. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice states “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”. Section 7.3 of the BPA Code of Practice States “The written authorisation must also set out: a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement” I can see that not all of the requirements set out in the strict guidelines of the BPA Code of Practice have been adhered to. I accept that the contract is in date however, the boundaries to the site have not been defined, nor have the vehicle types for restrictions been identified or the hours of restriction for enforcement and control. In addition there is no reference to who is responsible for maintaining the signs. As such, I am not satisfied that the PCN has been issued correctly. All other submission points will not be considered within this appeal response. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

Coupon-mad

Interesting decision, POPLA swerved the obvious 'no NTK' simple decision, in favour of:

Code of Practice States “The written authorisation must also set out: a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement”

I can see that not all of the requirements set out in the strict guidelines of the BPA Code of Practice have been adhered to. I accept that the contract is in date however, the boundaries to the site have not been defined, nor have the vehicle types for restrictions been identified or the hours of restriction for enforcement and control. In addition there is no reference to who is responsible for maintaining the signs. As such, I am not satisfied that the PCN has been issued correctly.