Parking company ignores its own appeals process

KeithP

For clarity, this is the document the OP appears to be quoting from:

Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4
of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012:
Recovery of Unpaid Parking Charges

mrportman

OK. So, government guidance on an Act tells us how to interpret an Act by setting out the spirit of the legislation which frequently and repeatedly refers to "driver". POFA's innovation is to extend enforcement action to keeper not to remove drivers' rights.

I appreciate the time put in to the responses, but a response to the actual question would get double-plus appreciation :-)

waamo

Can I suggest you actually read the act in full. Several posters in this thread know it inside out and back to front.

Your interpretation of it is a little off.

Redx

mrportman wrote: »

I appreciate the time put in to the responses, but a response to the actual question would get double-plus appreciation :-)

several posts answered your original question, including posts #2 and #7 and #10

Coupon-mad

POFA's innovation is to extend enforcement action to keeper not to remove drivers' rights.

We agree on that, it removes nothing but sadly it also does nothing useful that an admitted driver can use. You could have relied on much of Sch4 of the POFA, had you appealed as keeper.

Not now.

But email the BPA to complain. Prove you appealed (screenshot) and they will investigate.

mrportman

Thank you for your 'suggestion'. I have read the Act. By 'off' I presume you mean not in accordance with your own reading. Be that as it may, it does not address the question I posed.

However, as I'm clearly only going to get responses from people trying to tell me how I have done X or Y wrong rather than an answer I shall leave it there.

At least I tried. Thank you all for your time and efforts.

KeithP

mrportman wrote: »

I appreciate the time put in to the responses, but a response to the actual question would get double-plus appreciation :-)

OK, let's repeat your question(s):

mrportman wrote: »

My question is, after all that,where do I stand if they do try to take me to court?

If they take you to court, you need to defend yourself.

mrportman wrote: »

If the parking company haven't followed their appeals process then I can't take my appeal to the next level (they are members of BPA so it would be POPLA) so surely court action can't succeed??

Then that could be one argument to use.
It's a weak argument, and I certainly would not expect a judge to accept just that one argument and dismiss the case.
Of course as BPA members they have to abide by the BPA's CoP.
If you look you will find that argument also used in court because if the fail to abide by the BPA CoP they have effectively obtained keeper data from the DVLA wrongfully. Sadly, another weak argument.
Of course you could also use The Alternative Dispute Regulations to back your assertions.

So to answer your question - if you put enough effort in to create a defence that backs all your points and defeats the points raised by the claimant, then you will win the court case.
It simply is not a case of rocking up and saying "they haven't provided the advertised appeal process".
The court is not going to prove your case - you as the defendant must do that.

Redx

the no NTK argument would definitely fail because they did not need to apply to the DVLA for keeper details because the OP misguidedly gave them the drivers details in their initial appeal as a driver to the windscreen notice

I would also argue that the court claim would succeeed if the claimant has a valid contract with the land owner on private property, if they can prove the signs were there and met the CoP and if they can "prove" that they issued a relevant popla code to the initial appeal and thereby followed the BPA CoP (assuming they are BPA AOS members)

no NTK needed to be issued and no KEEPER details needed to be obtained due to the driver appealing as the driver , which bypassed POFA2012 completely

the defendant would have to defend the claim and prove the opposite to the judge