Help with POPLA appeal

Umkomaas

jon_joe wrote: »

"Does your PCN have the POFA wording on the back? If so, it is NOT a non-POFA PCN."

I need to check this out

No more from me jon joe on this thread. I will only respond to you on your own thread - you seem to be jumping in on a number of others’ threads.

jon_joe

Sorry Umkomaas,
I'm trying to learn from others who know more. I'm also trying to pass on knowledge which I pick up on the way. I'm new to all this.
I look forward to learning from you on my own thread. Thanks

Kelrus

Thankyou all...so just looking here, all it says is ‘if you were the driver at the time of event you are required to pay or appeal charge..’ there is no wording on the ticket about pofa, also I read in newbies thread that not all firms apply to this legislation?
Also do they have to state how much should have been paid for the duration of the time parked because it only says how long the vehicle was there?

Kelrus

Another question is what if the driver is visible in the picture sent on the ticket?

Umkomaas

Kelrus wrote: »

Another question is what if the driver is visible in the picture sent on the ticket?

So how would anyone know who that is? Do they have a database of faces? Do they have face recognition technology - I don’t think even MI5 have that?

Too much telly, methinks!

Kelrus

Dear sir/madam
Pcn ref xxxxxxx
Popla code xxxxxxx

I appeal this as the Registered Keeper and state my reasons below:

1. Non compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
a) Service of the Notice to Keeper (NTK) was made on the xxx day from the date of the alleged contravention. Which was xxx late. Consequently you are unable to invoke Keeper Liability under PoFA and must now continue any dialogue with the actual driver, if known.
b) PoFA is a legislative instrument to allow Keeper liability in regards to Parking on Private Land. Your PCN is not in relation to parking but encompasses a period of time where the vehicle in question was on the general roadway for an unspecified length of time, and not actually parked at all. As a result PoFA cannot be used in pursuance of the keeper.
c) PoFA requires you to specify the outstanding amount of the charge AND the maximum of any additional costs you may seek to recover. You have failed to specify the additional maximum amount you may charge so the NTK fails the strict compliance set by PoFA.
d) Lack of a Relevant Obligation to invoke the use of PoFA. A Relevant Obligation is defined as either (a.) an obligation arising under the terms of a Relevant Contract, or (b.) an obligation arising in circumstances where there is no Relevant Contract, as a result of trespass or other tort committed by parking the vehicle on Relevant land. I do not believe that you hold a contract with your principal that passes on authority to offer parking to drivers on the land owned by the NHS Trust, in which case there can be no relevant contract. The secondary provision to fulfil the meaning of Relevant Contract is one for a matter of a tort such as trespass. I do not believe such a tort may be pursued by anyone other than the landowner or legitimate occupier, or by another party “acting on behalf of” the landowner. In that respect ParkingEye have no right to name themselves as “the Creditor”. In this case, the lack of a Relevant Contract places this matter outside of direct process unless it is taken on behalf of the Trust, and so declared. You have invoked PoFA without due authority to form a Relevant Contract.
e) You are required to show on a NTK the length of time a car has parked in the alleged contravention. Your NTK shows only the total time within the hospital boundaries, and not actually parked.
2. Failure to comply with the BPA Code of Practice. In the case of Beavis v ParkingEye at the Supreme court, which you consistently and wrongly present as authority for every parking charge you raise, sets an expectation upon Parking Management Companies to fulfil the obligations of their Code of Practice. You have failed in that expectation.
a) The BPA Code of Practice (Section 21.1) sets a requirement to explain the nature of the use of ANPR cameras, not just to show a picture of a camera on the car park signs. This should state that the images obtained my be used to access the DVLA database to obtain the keepers details when a contravention has occurred. The signs at the location make no such declaration thus fail in the necessary compliance.

I found this example would this be ok to use as a guide?
Is there anything to add here? Or take away?

Should I add the charge is not a genuine pre estimate of loss?

KeithP

Kelrus, was this a hospital car park?

Forget about genuine pre estimate of loss.

Umkomaas

Please paragraph your posts - it’s too difficult to read when we are dealing with reading huge swathes of text for hours on end, every day.

Kelrus

Yes was a hospital car park

KeithP

Kelrus wrote: »

Yes was a hospital car park

Have you spoken to PALS?