POPLA appeal Euro Car Parks - Contract Hire Car

Coupon-mad

make a claim in the county court?

ECP never try court.

confirmed he was the hirer on the day

Your comments simply need to spell it out to POPLA that, as they have failed to show they complied with paragraph 14 of Schedule 4 (they cannot do so, because they did not comply because the Notice to Hirer sent to you, had NO enclosures) the PCN was not properly given. A hirer appellant cannot be held liable without full compliance with Sch4 which requires a great deal more than just a single sheet NTK and/or single sheet NTH, when the appellant is a hirer.

I would spell it out more than you did in your draft comments, in case you get a duff Assessor.

Keep it short so it fits in on the Portal.

Guys_Dad

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Keep it short so it fits in on the Portal.

Think I will preserve this post for posterity !!!!!!!!!:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Just kidding.

Coupon-mad

Comments on POPLA evidence is just about the only time I am concise!

Hospickle_Parking

Coupon-mad wrote: »

ECP never try court....

I would spell it out more than you did in your draft comments, in case you get a duff Assessor.

I got a duff assessor. This is the part of his assessment where he deals with POFA

"The appellant states that the claimant has not complied with the relevant requirements of PoFA 2012 and have not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. As the vehicle in question is a hire vehicle, the operator has exercised its rights under section 4 of PoFA 2012. This refers to the operators right to claim unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. This is subject to paragraph 13 of PoFA 2012, relating to hire vehicles. Paragraph 13(2) states: “The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given – a) a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; b) a copy of the hire agreement; and c) a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.” Reviewing the evidence provided to me by the operator, I have seen that a copy of a statement signed by, or on behalf, of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement, has been provided to me either as an attachment to the notice to hirer, or separately. As this document has been provided to me in the body of evidence supplied by the operator, I am satisfied that it has been provided to the appellant in accordance with the provisions set out in PoFA 2012. As a result, I am satisfied that the provisions set out in PoFA 2012 have been met for the purposes of transferring liability for unpaid parking charges from the keeper to the hirer of the vehicle. "


Is there now nothing I can do except wait for lots of letters from ECP and Gladstones?

Do ECP never go to court (as I take Coupon Mad's comment to indicate)?

Umkomaas

Reviewing the evidence provided to me by the operator, I have seen that a copy of a statement signed by, or on behalf, of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement, has been provided to me either as an attachment to the notice to hirer, or separately. As this document has been provided to me in the body of evidence supplied by the operator, I am satisfied that it has been provided to the appellant in accordance with the provisions set out in PoFA 2012

Was this included in the Evidence Pack you received from ECP?

What do they mean by 'has been provided to me either as an attachment to the notice to hirer, or separately'. Don't they know? Why the either/or?

What about the Hire Agreement? POPLA doesn't comment that it was shown to them by ECP. If it wasn't then they do not comply with PoFA requirements.

Similarly, they haven't commented that they have seen a copy of the Statement of Liability signed by the hirer! Again, unless this has been provided - no Hirer Liability under PoFA.

ECP needed to have met all three criteria, not just one.

Time for a stinging complaint to John Gallagher, Lead Adjudicator at POPLA, but you must phrase it as a 'Procedural Impropriety', not a rant that POPLA have got it 'wrong'.

Post your draft up here for comment if you wish.

KeithP

Hospickle_Parking wrote: »

Do ECP never go to court (as I take Coupon Mad's comment to indicate)?

Have you seen this:

www.bmpa.eu/companydata/Euro_Car_Parks.html

Hospickle_Parking

No, I hadn't seen that but that makes me smile! Thank you very much indeed!

I will write to the heap big chief about the daft decision of the adjudicator but at least I feel a bit better about the decision taking into account the above!

Hospickle_Parking

Umkomaas wrote: »

Was this included in the Evidence Pack you received from ECP?

There was a letter they'd received from the hire company confirming that I was the keeper.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/nnylwj33uyci865/ARVAL%20letter%20to%20ECP.JPG?dl=0

Umkomaas wrote: »

What do they mean by 'has been provided to me either as an attachment to the notice to hirer, or separately'. Don't they know? Why the either/or?

What about the Hire Agreement? POPLA doesn't comment that it was shown to them by ECP. If it wasn't then they do not comply with PoFA requirements.

Similarly, they haven't commented that they have seen a copy of the Statement of Liability signed by the hirer! Again, unless this has been provided - no Hirer Liability under PoFA.

ECP needed to have met all three criteria, not just one. .

Yup, that's what I thought!

Umkomaas wrote: »

Time for a stinging complaint to John Gallagher, Lead Adjudicator at POPLA, but you must phrase it as a 'Procedural Impropriety', not a rant that POPLA have got it 'wrong'.

Post your draft up here for comment if you wish.

Do I simply state that the adjudicator should have taken into account x y and z?

Umkomaas

Do I simply state that the adjudicator should have taken into account x y and z?

The Adjudicator must take all three requirements demanded by PoFA into account. PoFA is the LAW and cannot be interpreted in a different way by a mere POPLA assessor.

You will need to copy the relevant chapter and verse from PoFA to John Gallagher as I don't expect he will have sufficient intimate knowledge of this part of PoFA at his disposal.

Make sure you include the term 'Procedural Impropriety - Incorrect Interpretation of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 by the Assessor'.

EDIT TO ADD - just check out my following post before you start firing anything off to John Gallagher.

Umkomaas

There was a letter they'd received from the hire company confirming that I was the keeper.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/nnylwj33uyci865/ARVAL%20letter%20to%20ECP.JPG?dl=0

The scan isn't very clear, but I do see a section with 'Hire Agreement' showing. Does that meet condition b)?

Is there a copy of your signature showing there to meet condition c) - very hard to distinguish from the scan.