Advice please regarding parking charge notice issued by Care parking at Stretford tram station

Lounesbo

Aah thank you that’s very helpful.
Wow you all know your stuff- impressive.
Let’s see what happened next...

Lounesbo

Good evening all,
An extremely detailed and thorough reply has now been received at POPLA from Anchor security services disputing every section of the appeal covering all four appeal grounds. The whole process is logged and amounts to 38 pages. The comments stage is next.
The original appeal was, as discussed, based on one of the categories rather than ‘other’ and relates to
‘The amount charged on the parking notice is not correct’ (clearly an error which is annoying) and feel POPLA we’re not helpful here although they are independent? Howevr !!! (referred to throughout the document as Care parking) have still answered each point raised in the PDF including: NTK liability, who was driving, signage and No evidence of landowner Authority.
Would it be helpful to copy relavent parts to this site? They dispute each section and constantly refer to Internet parking forums and outdated references.
Thanks everyone for your ongoing help

Redx

Anchor are known as Care Parking so its irrelevant which name they are using, see the BPA website , they are an entity with more than one moniker , deal with it

concentrate on finding the errors in their evidence pack as you have 7 days to put a 2000 character (not 2000 word) rebuttal on the popla portal

forget about what they say about internet forums, its about legal loopholes not name calling (I told you all this months ago on page 1), so look at their contract , their signage , if they have transferred liabilty from driver to keeper, is the land relevant land under POFA2012 or not ?. have they broken anything in the BPA CoP ? , did they provide a copy of the NTK ?

then construct your short rebuttal, look at other rebuttals to popla over the last 12 months listed on here, what did they latch on to ?

find their evidence errors and use them against them , like the fact you stated that no NTK was ever sent by post to the keeper by day 56 , the fact that the keeper is not liable for the actions of the driver , the Henry Greenslade paragraph that they have failed to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper, that the land is under TfGM statutory control so no keeper liability

ps:- why are you moaning about popla here ?

popla are the legal go between and so they havent done anything yet, they had your appeal and now Care have added their evidence pack, so now you are at the rebuttal stage following the evidence pack submission, this is entirely normal

POPLA assessors will start to study the case for both sides in 7 days time (or longer) - until now all they have done is act as the destination for both sides , they certainly wont "help" either side, nor will they study either sides stories and evidence until AFTER the 7 day rebuttal date has expired

Lounesbo

The gripe about popla is their categorisation for appeals. There did not appear a relevant section and the -other -category was indicated as the least likely to be successful although that was the one which appeared the best to choose. Like you say I believe them to be neutral but other people posting above have indicated otherwise. The error was not having read the accurate guidance in the threads of course !!! Anyhow assuming their neutrality is helpful but the category chosen in this appeal case could possibly result in the loss?
We shall see and thanks again

KeithP

Don't forget to work CM's suggestion in post #61 into your rebuttal.

nosferatu1001

The blurb about which was least likely to be sucessful was written before they had seen a single appeal.

Lounesbo

Dear all,
Ok the last 2 hours have been spent exploring newbie threads, looking through the helpful comments above and then trying to think legally! 5 sections have been highlighted and the first one is regarding the appeal grounds category. The Four categories below are the headings used in the POPLA appeal specifically but I have removed their points and just included mine. The 2000 character limit is in mind but not honoured/ checked at this juncture.
All points, advice, help gratefully received.
Thank you

Section A:
The appellant has submitted their POPLA Appeal on the grounds The amount requested on the parking charge notice is not correct whilst we have entered into further detail on the appellants points below, the criteria for this category is straight forward and should be assessed on the simple basis, as the signage and the PCN both state the details of the charge and the discounts offered within the applicable timeframes, the amount been asked for is correct, the charge has not been paid, therefore we are not asking for a payment of an amount which is not due. A screenshot of the payments screen is shown below to support this. A copy of the original PCN issued and the Contractual Warning Signage are enclosed in Section C and G respectively, both show the charge to be £100 reducing to £60 if paid within 14 days of issue, so Care Parking would dispute this statement.

Appellants response: The amount requested on the parking charge notice is not correct as the appellant is not responsible for any parking charges issued to the driver as the appellant is the register keeper and the land is under statutory control of TFGM and there can be no keeper liability. This is not relevant land.


Appellants response regarding Keeper liability: Care parking are transferring liability from the driver to the keeper and the land is not relevant under POFA2012. No notice to keeper was ever served and this is necessary if the registered keeper is now being pursued in relation to the PCN. The keeper is not responsible for the actions of the driver. Reference is made here to Henry Gleenslade ruling and the relevant paragraph whereby CP have failed legally to transfer liability to the keeper. As stated above the land is under statutory control so there cannot be keeper liability.

Section C:

Regarding Driver

The appellant disputes the above assumptions that the keeper is in fact the driver and requests evidence to support this. The appellant also would draw attention to point 17. It was pointed out in the paragraph above that the keeper cannot be liable in these circumstances and therefore cannot be pursued.


Section regarding landowner points:

The appellants response. The two signatures have been blanked out by a black pen and are only those of the contractor and not a signature of the landowner so this appears to be an altered contract. There is also no map enclosed detailing the area to be covered by the contract. It would be necessary to see the full contract, all party signatures and drawings.. The above contract does not appear legally binding.

Regarding signage:

The appellant would ask that POPLA disallow pages 38,39,40 from Care Parking (CP) which are purported to be copies of signs at the site. They are thoroughly misleading and are presented as very large, bold and highly readable, however they are neither legible nor accessible at the site. This can be seen from both CPs photographs and those enclosed by the appellant previously. This sign does not form part of the parking area at all and is at least 150 metres from any cars parked on the site. It is at the top of a road leading to the car park. Additionally the CP signs are in competition with yellow and blue signs (for the METRO and a redundant bus stop) and these are suggested as colour contrasts to avoid in the BPA guide. The main sign highlighted on pages 38-41 by CP is in fact much smaller and is also on the opposite side of the road to the flow of traffic and cannot be read safely in a moving car. BPA CoP S18 PARAGRAPH 2, Appendix B states that The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers, without their needing to look away from the road ahead

Redx

you should have also posted those rebuttals without all the other stuff as well, to make it easier for comments


here they are below

Section A: !!!8216;the amount requested on the parking charge notice is not correct!!!8217; as the appellant is not responsible for any parking charges issued to the driver as the appellant is the register keeper and the land is under statutory control of TFGM and there can be no keeper liability. This is not relevant land!!!8217;.

Section B Care parking are transferring liability from the driver to the keeper and the land is not relevant under POFA2012. No note to keeper was ever served as discussed above and this is necessary if the registered keeper is now being pursued in relation to the PCN. The keeper is not responsible for the actions of the driver. Reference is made here to Henry Gleenslade ruling and the relevant paragraph whereby CP have failed legally to transfer liability to the keeper. As stated above the land is under statutory control so there cannot be keeper liability.

The appellant disputes the above assumptions that the keeper is in fact the driver and requests evidence to support this. The appellant also would draw attention to point 17. It was pointed out in the paragraph above that the keeper cannot be liable in these circumstances and therefore cannot be pursued.

The appellant!!!8217;s response. The two signatures has been blanked out by a black pen and are only those of the contractor and not a signature of the landowner so this appears to be an altered contract. It is also dated only 2 days ago so evidence of the previous contract would be relevant as the PCN was issued in April 2017. There is also no map enclosed detailing the area to be covered by the contract. It would be necessary to see the contract at the time of the alleged contravention with all relevant signatures, drawings and date. The above contract does not appear legally binding.

The appellant would ask that POPLA disallow pages 38,39,40 from CP which are purported to be copies of signs at the site. They are thoroughly misleading and are presented as very large, bold and highly readable, however they are neither legible nor accessible in these formats at the site. This can be seen from both CP!!!8217;s photographs and those enclosed by the appellant previously. This sign does not form part of the parking area at all and is at least 150 metres from any cars parked on the site. It is at the top of a road leading to the car park. Additionally the CP signs are in competition with yellow and blue signs (for the METRO and a redundant bus stop) and these are suggested as colour contrasts to avoid in the BPA guide. The main sign highlighted on pages 38-41 by CP is in fact much smaller and is also on the opposite side of the road to the flow of traffic and cannot be read safely in a moving car. BPA CoP S18 PARAGRAPH 2, Appendix B states that !!!8216;The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers, without their needing to look away from the road ahead!!!8217;.

and here they are with comments in red

Section A : the amount requested on the parking charge notice is not correct as the appellant is not responsible for any parking charges issued to the driver as the appellant is the register keeper and the land is under statutory control of TFGM and there can be no keeper liability. This is not relevant land

Section B ; Care parking are transferring liability from the driver to the keeper and the land is not relevant under POFA2012. No Notice To Keeper was ever served as discussed above and this is necessary if the registered keeper is now being pursued in relation to the PCN. The keeper is not responsible for the actions of the driver. Reference is made here to Henry Gleenslade ruling and the relevant paragraph whereby CP have failed legally to transfer liability to the keeper. As stated above the land is under statutory control so there cannot be keeper liability.

The appellant disputes the above assumptions that the keeper is in fact the driver and requests evidence to support this. The appellant also would draw attention to point 17. It was pointed out in the paragraph above that the keeper cannot be liable in these circumstances and therefore cannot be pursued.

the two signatures have been blanked out by a black pen and are only those of the contractor and not a signature of the landowner so this appears to be an altered contract. It is also dated only 2 days ago so evidence of the previous contract would be relevant as the PCN was issued in April 2017. There is also no map enclosed detailing the area to be covered by the contract. It would be necessary to see the contract at the time of the alleged contravention with all relevant signatures, drawings and date. The above contract does not appear legally binding.

The appellant would ask that POPLA disallow pages 38,39,40 from Care Parking which are purported to be copies of signs at the site. They are thoroughly misleading and are presented as very large, bold and highly readable, however they are neither legible nor accessible in these formats at the site. This can be seen from both CP photographs and those enclosed by the appellant previously. This sign does not form part of the parking area at all and is at least 150 metres from any cars parked on the site. It is at the top of a road leading to the car park. Additionally the CP signs are in competition with yellow and blue signs (for the METRO and a redundant bus stop) and these are suggested as colour contrasts to avoid in the BPA guide. The main sign highlighted on pages 38-41 by CP is in fact much smaller and is also on the opposite side of the road to the flow of traffic and cannot be read safely in a moving car. BPA CoP S18 PARAGRAPH 2, Appendix B states that The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers, without their needing to look away from the road ahead

so some corrections made, plus check out that date because I doubt that the pcn was issued in 2017 for a popla appeal in july 2018

also check the 2000 character limit

never mind any other comments about your rebuttal above

here are some other examples of previous popla rebuttals on here, for clarity

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74254622#Comment_74254622

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74464338#Comment_74464338


and get rid of the punctuation errors, they are not needed and cause forum issues when posted on here , plus they add to the character count too so it exceeds the 2000 character limit at the moment

Lounesbo

Made amandements as per your message but will further alter after digesting the responses in the links attached.
Thanks

Lounesbo

Final 2000 character appeal below. Have worked on this 3 times this week and as POPLA emailed Monday 30th think it is better to send later tonight?

Any final comments? Thank you!

The amount requested on the PCN is not relevant/ correct as the appellant is the registered keeper (RK) and the PCN was issued to the driver. Care Parking (CP) has no evidence that they transferred liability from the driver to the RK and that PoFA was followed correctly. No notice to keeper was ever served and this is necessary if RK is being pursued. The only way CP can transfer liability from driver to RK is by using the provisions of the PoFA 2012. Additionally the land is under statutory control of TFGM and as such there can be no keeper liability. This is not relevant land under POFA2012. The RK is not responsible for actions of the driver.
CP has failed to demonstrate who the driver was and therefore who is liable for the PCN. Reference is made to the Henry Gleenslade ruling and the relevant paragraph whereby CP have failed legally to transfer liability to the keeper.
Regarding landowner points please note that signatures have been blanked out. Only those of the contractor are evident and not the landowner. This is an altered contract with no end date and no map detailing the area covered by the contract.
Regarding signage the appellant requests that pages 38-40 be disallowed. The sign PRESENTED is large, bold and readable. The real sign does not form part of the parking area, is small & on the opposite side of the road. This conflicts with BPA CoP S18 para 2, Appendix B: The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers, without their needing to look away from the road ahead. Many CP signs are also in competition with yellow and blue signs, regarded as colour contrasts to avoid in the BPA guide.