Do i need to name the driver of the vehicle to appeal parking charge notice

sparkles100

Hi all


so I am at the next stage of replying with my comments to the Evidence pack that Elite have submitted against my appeal to POPLA. Elite has argued the below but they have also raised points I put in my original appeal to them that I left out of my POPLA appeal. These were circumstance's such as the car was parked only for a few minute's and a lorry was blocking off the road so the car was parked on the street to visit a shop. Also that the charge was not justifiable as this was not in proportion to any loss. It was stated throughout the appeal however that the signs were not seen on leaving the car. The driver has also not been named and I have had no NTK.




I cant seem to get the screenshots of their evidence pack to upload on here. I screenshot it from the PDF file I was sent but the forum is saying it is too many letters.


My appeal response is below for now however:


My comments:




Case Summary section:


Elite refer to !!!8216;....... parked the above vehicle at Victoria Passage, Stourbridge!!!8217; and on several occasions they refer to !!!8216;........ parked on private land!!!8217; / !!!8216;........ parked her car!!!8217;. I at no point have named the vehicle of the driver and I have declined to do this throughout my appeal. I have appealed this PCN as the keeper of the vehicle both to Elite themselves and also through the POPLA appeals process. Therefore I find it inappropriate that Elite detail in their case summary that !!!8216;......... parked her car!!!8217; when the driver has never been named. Again I point to the fact that I am not legally obliged to name the driver and can appeal as keeper of the Vehicle. Elite have not sent me a Notice to Keeper at any point and are now outside of their 56 days to do so in order to pursue me as the vehicle keeper for the PCN, as outlined in the PoFa 2012.




Location of Vehicle !!!8211; Case Summary section:


Elite have referenced that I have claimed that Victoria Passage is a walkway so the car could not have been parked there. I have provided in my appeal photographic evidence of Victoria Passage being a walk way and also provided Google maps of Victoria Passage being shown as a walkway. In my appeal I also provided Google map images showing that where the car was parked is shown as Talbot Street. Elite state in their evidence that no where on their ticket does it state street name as Victoria Passage, yet as you will see from the photo evidence I provided that it does state Location as Victoria Passage which again is shown on Google as a walkway between buildings. Elite have still not provided any evidence to prove that the area the car was parked is in fact Victoria Passage and Google Maps clearly shows the area the vehicle was parked as Talbot Street. At no point have I referenced that Elite detailed street name as !!!8216;Victoria passage!!!8217; but I have stated that they detail Location as Victoria passage and have asked them to prove this as the area in question is shown as Talbot Street on Google Maps.





Signage:


Elite reference their signage as clearly visible and have provided photos further to their original photo evidence which was originally close ups of the vehicle and none of the surrounding area. Their updated evidence of photos of the surrounding area (which do not show the vehicle in question parked) shows extra signage placed in comparison to the photos taken as evidence for my appeal. It is not justified to use photos that clearly do not relate to the incident in question and I also find it deceitful that Elite would try to use photos as evidence that clearly have been updated to show extra signage meaning they are falsifying evidence. I would also question why Elite have decided to put extra signage out after my appeal if they felt that the signage was already satisfactory?





The photo submitted in my appeal to Elite and POPLA:
photos placed to show extra signage added




In my appeal I stated that for this appeal, !!!8216;I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this!!!8217;. Elite!!!8217;s original photo evidence as I have outlined/included in my appeal show only close ups of the vehicle parked and also a close up of a sign with no surrounding area. In their evidence pack they have provided extra photos but these are not from a drivers perspective driving into the street or parked up (the car was reversed parked as detailed in appeal) and clearly show added signage. As referenced in my appeal the photos for the appeal were taken from driver perspective and there were no visible signs on entering the street, the car was reversed parked and there were no signs to the side of the car or in front of the car. I note that none of their newley added photos are dated and also do not include any evidence of the car being parked in them, they show that they have added in parking signs, so these are not relevant to the case.





I have shown in the photos in my appeal, from driver perspective, that there are no clear/legible signs on entry to the street, around the street, or from the front of the car.


Elite also state in their evidence pack !!!8216;as you can see from the evidence provided by our ticketers there is a visible sign to the left of ...........car. By parking her vehicle she is agreeing to the parking terms and conditions!!!8217;. As previously stated I have declined to name the driver yet Elite still continue to reference that !!!8216;she is agreeing to the parking terms and conditions!!!8217; yet the driver has never been named. Secondly the sign is not fully shown in the photo and only a corner appears at the edge of the photo, it is not clear, nor legible in the photo and the photo is also not taken from the driver perspective and the car is shown as reversed parked. As clearly stated in my appeal the car was reversed parked and there were no signs in front or to the side of the car. It is also stated that the PCN was seen on return to the car and only then was a sign behind the car !!!8216;spotted high up on the wall behind the car, over to the left side!!!8217; meaning that no contract could be formed as the sign was not seen before the parking charge was issued and there were no visible signs to the front or sides of the car meaning no contract could be formed. My appeal also outlines case Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forst (2000) !!!8216;where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to !!!8211; and cannot have !!!8216;breached!!!8217; !!!8211; an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract!!!8217;.


Elite reference appeal of the car being parked for a few minutes and charge being unfair and unjustifiable. The car was parked as it was believed fine to do so, there were other cars parked and after the PCN was seen on the window screen it was noted that there were other cars parked with no permit and they had not been issued a PCN. Signs as stated above were not seen so therefore there was no reason for the car not to be parked from the drivers point of view. Therefore the parking charge demand is unreasonable and unfair as firstly no contract could be formed as there were not enough clear and legible signs meaning the driver did not see the signs on leaving the car, secondly again they refer to !!!8216;she has simply parked her vehicle!!!8217; when I have not named the driver and they have not sent a notice to keeper so I have declined to pay any charge demanded by Elite. The demand is simply not justifiable and under PoFa 2012, Elite should not be pursuing me as keeper of the vehicle without sending a notice to keeper within 56 days, which has now passed. I also find that Elite!!!8217;s evidence pack is based very much on a presumptive manner as they keep referring to !!!8216;she parked her car!!!8217; and also !!!8216;she simply parked her vehicle as close to the shops as possible thinking she could park her vehicle where she wants because she is only going to be quick!!!8217;. Again I have not named the driver therefore Elite are purely stating their opinions rather than factual evidence.


I would also like to point out that Elite reference in their evidence that I stated the car was parked in Victoria Passage for three to four minutes at Victoria Passage. This is incorrect my appeal to Elite clearly states the car was parked for a few minutes in Talbot Street.





I note that Elite reference that I could not upload my appeal due to an IT issue but I did send it in the post. (they reference in their evidence pack that it was being updated but in their email responding to my complaint that it would not work ,they said it was an IT issue). On the parking charge it states you can submit appeals by email which I did, I received an automated email saying that appeals needed to be submitted via the web link meaning you have to fill an appeal in for the second time. I advised Elite of the issue with submitting the online form and in the meantime I also decided to send the appeal by post. They advised I could send my appeal by email as the online form did not work so I re-sent my appeal by email and also advised that this had also been posted. Elite then later emailed me again saying the online form issues had been resolved and that I could now submit my appeal online. I emailed back stating that I would not be filling in the online form as they had already stated that I could email appeal and I had also advised I had posted a copy too which they had now signed for as received. Elite then emailed back saying that they could not asses my appeal as I had not named the driver. As I declined to name the driver and also knew that I was not obliged to do this and could appeal as keeper of the vehicle I then emailed the British Parking Association (BPA) regarding this matter. In the meantime waiting for a response from the BPA, I also received a letter by post from Elite again stating that they could not assess my appeal as I had not named the driver. When the BPA contacted Elite regarding this matter telling them that I could appeal as keeper of the vehicle and that I was not obliged to name the driver, only then did they assess my appeal which was rejected and did not adequately respond to any of the points made in appeal.




I then went on to submit my appeal to the POPLA appeals process after receiving the POPLA code and rejection of appeal from Elite after I finally got them to acknowledge and assess my appeal.


I would also like to state and make a complaint that after submitting my POPLA appeal and also being in the appeals process still, on ........... I received a letter by post from the ZZPS which was a collection agency instructed by Elite to try and recover the parking charge notice demand from myself. The letter stated my appeals process had finished and that the time had elapsed to pay the original charge. Therefore they were stating I need to pay another £70 on top of the £100 and if I did not respond within 7 days then a solicitor would be instructed to start looking at instructing county court proceedings and this would then incur a further £36 charge on top (please see attached letter). I have again complained to the BPA on ...... after receiving this letter as it appears that Elite believe they are above the law and codes of practice set out as guidelines to them as part of being a member of the BPA. Firstly, they breached the BPA code of practice by refusing my appeal as the keeper of the vehicle and demanded I had to name the driver of the vehicle to appeal when this is not the case and secondly they are also breaching the code of practice by instructing a collection agency to chase me for payment when the appeals process is still in progress. Thirdly I advised the BPA that I had not been sent a notice to keeper and it was outside of the 56 days to do so as outlined in the PoFa 2012. I outlined that I find it unbelievable that whilst I am expected to follow the appeals process, Elite are evidently not adhering to the processes outlined to them as a BPA member and seem to think this is acceptable. I have asked the BPA what action will be taken regarding them breaching three areas of code of practice/PoFa rules. I have also emailed my MP regarding this as there has been recent discussions in February 2018 between MP!!!8217;s on how unregulated the private parking industry is.


https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-02-02/debates/CC84AF5E-AC6E-4E14-81B1-066E6A892807/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill




Quotes outlined from MPs below:


''Rip-offs from car park Cowboys must stop''; unfair treatment; signage deliberately confusing to ensure a PCN is issued; ''years of abuse by rogue parking companies''; bloodsuckers; ''the current system of regulation is hopeless, like putting Dracula in charge of the blood-bank''; extortionate fines; rogue operators; ''sense of injustice''; unfair charges and notices; wilfully misleading; signage is a deliberate act to deceive or mislead; ''confusing signs are often deliberate, to trap innocent drivers''; unreasonable; a curse; harassing; operating in a disgusting way; appeals service is no guarantee of a fair hearing; loathed; outrageous scam; dodgy practice; outrageous abuse; unscrupulous practices; ''the British Parking Association is as much use as a multi-storey car park in the Gobi desert''; and finally, by way of unanimous conclusion: ''we need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country. Ordinary motorists and ordinary residents should not have to put up with this''.





BPA have acknowledged my email on ........ and have said that they will look into this matter further and contact once they have more information. They have stated that all members of their approved operator scheme must adhere to the code of practice requirements and of the requirements of the PoFa 2012. Please see below screenshot:



I am still awaiting to hear back from the BPA or any comments that Elite have made on why they feel they can ignore the strict guidelines set out for them and harass me whilst I am following the appeal procedure. Please note that I would have included this in my appeal but the ZZPS letter did not arrive until after I submitted my appeal.





Parking Scheme agreement:


Firstly I would like to point out that the start of this agreement refers to !!!8216;the client requires the company to exercise all aspects of the PSA in accordance with the requirements of the current British Parking Association Code of Practice!!!8217;. As referenced above Elite have already breached the BPA code of practice and have also not followed the PoFa 2012 which is required by the BPA.


Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements for agreements/landowner authority (as outlined in my appeal). The agreement does not meet all of these requirements as outlined below:

• There is nothing outlining the boundaries and bays where the enforcement applies/does no apply
• There are no hours or days of operation/restriction detailed in the agreement
• No detail of how much the landowner authorises this operator to charge (as outlined in appeal this can not be assumed to be the sum in the small print on a sign)
• Signs are not displayed in a clear and visible manner which is a requirement of the agreement

any help would be much appreciated. I can post the landownder agreement too if needed but didn't want to put on just in case I am not supposed to.


thanks

Umkomaas

You have just 2,000 characters to respond to an evidence pack from a PPC. You have utilised over 10,000.

Your response should be short bullet points against what the PPC has said which you disagree with, or which are plainly incorrect. You cannot introduce new points that were not contained in your first appeal to POPLA.

So you need to eliminate any waffle in your draft, and try again. More characters than 2,000 will require a .pdf file attachment, but there's plenty to believe that unless the rebuttal comes through the web portal, within the 2,000 character limit, the POPLA assessor just won't read/deal with/accept it.

Coupon-mad

I agree. Cut it down to comments on the evidence, point out things that you will win on.

POPLA will NOT read long comments that you try to email to get round the 2000 characters.

Try searching this board for POPLA Comments bullet points and read a fair few examples.

sparkles100

My points are less than 2,000 characters as i have drafted it on word and it tells me my word count is lower than 2,000. I have cut some of it out and will search POPLA comments to try and cut it down more. The only reason im emailing my points is because i wasnt made aware the evidence pack was submitted and there was no option online to view so POPLA have had to email it to me and asked me to respond by email

Thanks !!!55357;!!!56842;

Umkomaas

My points are less than 2,000 characters as i have drafted it on word and it tells me my word count is lower than 2,000.

Your word count may well be lower than 2,000, but we are talking about characters here, not words.

Characters are every letter, every space, every punctuation mark.