NTK Received After 4 Weeks

Umkomaas

Since I received this NTK a month after the incident, it doesn't meet this requirement.

Good! So give them the details of the dates. As I said, you have to spell it out to POPLA assessors. Leave nothing to chance with PE as they are the most litigious parking company in the country.

Otherwise, you might have to spell it out instead to a judge.

Kill it as soon as you can.

BobSmith5

Umkomaas wrote: »

Good! So give them the details of the dates. As I said, you have to spell it out to POPLA assessors. Leave nothing to chance with PE as they are the most litigious parking company in the country.

Otherwise, you might have to spell it out instead to a judge.

Kill it as soon as you can.

I did, but I blanked out the dates for the post on the forum. Is the recent draft I posted suitable?

Umkomaas

BobSmith5 wrote: »

I did, but I blanked out the dates for the post on the forum. Is the recent draft I posted suitable?

On a skim read. But are you not going to include this strong appeal point from the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post 3?

The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=71287626&postcount=2342

A natural follow-on to 'No Keeper Liability' (with full reasons!).

Coupon-mad

Regarding the first point of POFA not being complied with, I thought this was the case because I received the NTK a month after the incident. Is this a valid point?

It will win! Golden ticket, can't be lost at POPLA unless they go a bit mad!

BobSmith5

Umkomaas wrote: »

On a skim read. But are you not going to include this strong appeal point from the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post 3?

The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=71287626&postcount=2342

A natural follow-on to 'No Keeper Liability' (with full reasons!).

Thank you. Got that in for point 2.

Coupon-mad wrote: »

It will win! Golden ticket, can't be lost at POPLA unless they go a bit mad!

Thank you, too. I think most of these template points are from yourself.

Does my appeal look suitable?

Coupon-mad

Eminently suitable, tell us when you win.

BobSmith5

Hi all,

I was wondering if I could some more assistance with my appeal.

My appeal was labelled as a 'Golden Ticket' on here, as the timing fell outside what was required for POFA (2012).

In my appeal, I covered the following:
Failure to comply with POFA 2012.
No keeper liability.
No evidence of landowner authority.
Insufficient signage.

I submitted my appeal to POPLA, and they wrote back stating that ParkingEye had submitted their comments.

In their evidence, one of the comments is:

Please be advised, this Parking Charge was not issued under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As such, the appellant!!!8217;s comments regarding the Parking Charge Notice being issued incorrectly are not relevant in the case.

I was banking on the failure to comply with POFA, so I'm worried about this. They've also provided a map of signage, and stated that the land is privately owned.

Authority
ParkingEye can confirm that the above site is on private land, is not council owned and that we have written authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices at this site from the landowner (or landowner!!!8217;s agent).
It must also be noted that any person who makes a contract in his own name without disclosing the existence of a principal, or who, though disclosing the fact that he is acting as an agent on behalf of a principal, renders himself personally liable on the contract, is entitled to enforce it against the other contracting party. (Fairlie v Fenton (1870) LR 5 Exch 169). It follows that a lawful contract between ParkingEye and the motorist will be enforceable by ParkingEye as a party to that contract.

Please could someone provide me with guidance and advice on what to state for my follow up comments? I think I only have until tomorrow to reply.

Thank you.

waamo

Umkomaas wrote: »

On a skim read. But are you not going to include this strong appeal point from the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post 3?

The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=71287626&postcount=2342

A natural follow-on to 'No Keeper Liability' (with full reasons!).

This has it nailed on. Point out to POPLA that by their own admission PE are not relying on POFA. They are assuming you were the driver. It is their responsibility to prove they are correct. You do not have to prove your innocence.

PE have failed to show who the driver was and are now guessing. They cannot assume it was you.

Spell this out clearly to POPLA in language even a nail technician can understand and you should be fine.

Redx

you have to read their evidence pack and find all the salient points where they fail to meet the requirements by their own admission, plus where your popla appeal points are reinforced

also look for the contract details and any errors or discrepancies or if it is redacted

look at amy maps and signage etc and point out their deficiencies (if any)

if you are the keeper and they failed POFA2012 and are saying they are not relying on POFA, then point this out as meaning that you the KEEPER cannot be held liable and they have failed to transfer liability from driver to keeper , as waamo says above ^^^^

ie:- you are not to introduce new evidence but to comment on their failures and anything that supports your version of this saga

keep it short and sweet as the rebuttal page only allows maybe 2000 characters

BobSmith5

Thank you. How is this?

Dear POPLA,

On page 6 of the document above, ParkingEye have claimed that the charge was not issued under the Protection of Freedom Act (2012), and stated that the appeal point regarding this is irrelevant. As POPLA is aware, this is not the case, and ParkingEye are making false claims that do not hold up to the standards set. ParkingEye have failed to transfer the liability from the driver to the keeper. As per my original appeal, I am appealing as the registered keeper of the vehicle. ParkingEye have the responsibility to prove I was the driver. They have failed to do so.

Althought ParkingEye stated that the site was on private land, they did not provide documentary evidence of authority to issue tickets. They have merely stated they have authority to operate on the land.

Additionally, the font size of the terms and conditions of the park are in small font, and do not seem to comply with the BPA Code of Practice; that terms and conditions must be in clear, prominent, and legible font from all parking spaces, in order to form a contract.