POPLA appeal - response from operator

tomtt

Hi Coupon-Mad,
They have exactly provided a contract with the landowner, but has provided a witness statement letter from a 'representative' of the landowner saying that Highview is the approved operator of the Retail Park and the letter is date 17/10/17, the day before Highview posted a reply to my appeal with POPLA.
I am not sure what exactly to check for any irregularity with the signatory?
Thanks
Tom

KeithP

You wrote in your POPLA appeal:

It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

(my bolding)

You need to reinforce the point that a vague witness statement is unacceptable.

Coupon-mad

tomtt wrote: »

Hi Coupon-Mad,
They have exactly provided a contract with the landowner, but has provided a witness statement letter from a 'representative' of the landowner saying that Highview is the approved operator of the Retail Park and the letter is date 17/10/17, the day before Highview posted a reply to my appeal with POPLA.
I am not sure what exactly to check for any irregularity with the signatory?
Thanks
Tom

Well, is that person the landowner? If not, point it out to POPLA, plus the date being October (after the alleged parking event) and that the WS includes none of the detail of the supposed contract, none of the the definitions, exemptions, grace period, hours or days of operation, the charge, the contraventions - nothing.

It could relate to a contract that merely protects disabled bays from red cars on a Sunday...

tomtt

Hi All,

My appeal has been successfull. Really happy about it. Very much appreciate all your help on this.

Below is POPLA assessor's message.

"I acknowledge the reason the operator has issued the PCN. The burden of proof lies with the operator to demonstrate that it has issued the PCN correctly. The operator has issued the PCN as the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site for longer than the maximum time permitted. The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal. However, my report will focus on the ground that the appellant says the Notice to Keeper is not compliant with PoFA 2012. PoFA 2012 is used to transfer liability for the PCN from the driver of the vehicle to the keeper of the vehicle, when the driver has not been identified. Within the appellant’s appeal to the parking operator, I can see that they have stated they were on site. However, I am not satisfied that the driver of the vehicle has been identified. Upon review of the Notice to Keeper, I am unable to see that the operator has advised it is attempting to transfer liability for the PCN using PoFA 2012. As the operator is not seeking to pursue the keeper under PoFA 2012, only the driver can be held liable for the charge. As the driver has not been identified and liability for the PCN has not been transferred to the keeper of the vehicle, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider any other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. "