Minster Baywatch - No windscreen PCN, No postal notice - straight to payment demand? residents spot

Umkomaas

Mr_Stroopwafel wrote: »

BPA decided MBW had sent the required NtK and had proof, but haven't shown it to me. I will ask this.

On the positive side I now have a POPLA code but would rather take it beyond them and go on the offensive. Tired of their nonsense!

Kill it at POPLA first, go on the offensive afterwards ...... with a nice SAR-bomb!

Mr_Stroopwafel

I certainly will do, looking forward to that response!

In terms of Popla appeal, it was more than 14 days between the date of "contravention" and date of issue. However they're not mentioning POFA 2012. Therefore is my strongest point to say they've failed to show who was driving and cannot hold me liable as keeper since they've not followed POFA 2012 ? Slightly confused by the wording in that part of the newbies thread that says they don't have to follow POFA?

Umkomaas

Does their NtK come with a PoFA warning and fully meet the requirements of PoFA Schedule 4? It needs checking pedantically.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted

If it fails to meet the above, or if MBW say they are not following PoFA, then they cannot hold the keeper liable (unless there's been admission of being the driver) and should be an easy win at POPLA.

Mr_Stroopwafel

It definitely doesn't say anything anywhere about PoFA anywhere, only that "they obtained my details from DVLA under "reasonable cause" request".

This is the Ntk I never received anyway only after getting it second hand from BPA.

Mr_Stroopwafel

Hi all,

POPLA appeal submitted and now just writing my rebuttal to the operators pack, I'm keeping it to a couple of points (good idea or not??)

Wanted to confirm that since MBW make no mention of POFA and even admit they aren't attempting to use it, but still want to hold me liable - there is literally no other way to hold a keeper liable unless POFA has been followed? Is that right? They also admit they don't know the identity of the driver.

It kind of beggars belief they can shoot themselves in the foot in this way but appears so!

My other points in the rebuttal will be based on recent POPLA decisions on unlit signage and grace periods, I don't have much else to add to their rebuttal although could write something for each easily.

Is it better to keep the rebuttal brief or not? My appeal was a bit of a kitchen sink job with the strongest points first.

Thanks in anticipation

Umkomaas

Is it better to keep the rebuttal brief or not? My appeal was a bit of a kitchen sink job with the strongest points first.

You've only got 2,000 characters to play with, so you can't be verbose. Use bullet points rather than lengthy sentences or rangy paragraphs.

I'm keeping it to a couple of points (good idea or not??)

You need as many as necessary. Challenge anything they say which you disagree with or which is plain wrong. Anything unchallenged could be viewed by POPLA as you accepting what MBW are saying.

My other points in the rebuttal will be based on recent POPLA decisions on unlit signage and grace periods

You cannot introduce any new evidence.

Mr_Stroopwafel

Thanks for the reply.


Not introducing any new points, I've put the strongest first and made a point for each of theirs to either rebut or state is incorrect.



Please could you let me know your thoughts?



· Minster Baywatch have provided no evidence to suggest that they correctly transferred liability from the driver of the vehicle to the registered keeper of the vehicle and that PoFA was followed correctly.

The only way a parking operator can transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper of a vehicle, is by using the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012)..

Minster Baywatch therefore are not attempting to use the provisions of PoFA 2012. As such, POPLA must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate who the driver of the vehicle was and therefore liable for the charge.

· Minster Baywatch have failed to provide POPLA with photographic evidence to show that motorists are able to clearly see the signage on the site in the dark. Their evidence is taken during the hours of daylight.

Therefore, after reviewing the operator's evidence POPLA will not able to determine if the signage would have been illuminated when the appellant entered the site. No images have been provided of the signage in the hours of darkness, and no images have been provided of any functional lighting in the hours of darkness on the site in question.

Based upon the evidence provided, POPLA will not able to determine whether the appellant would have been able to see the signage in the dark, as the operator has failed to provide evidence to rebut the appellant's claims.

· Minster Baywatch are drawing assumptions as to the identity of the driver in this pack, however this is has never established and they have no evidence as to who was driving.

· I reiterate my point that the tenancy agreement in my appeal has primacy of contract over any agreement of Minster Baywatch. They have also provided no evidence who this agreement is with as it is not full and un-redacted.

· The grace period is not sufficient, it was 1XXX seconds, this does not comply with the BPA code of practice.


· The tenancy agreement has no mention of any parking company or requirement to display a permit.
· The Beavis case is not relevant to a gated residential car park, the legitimate interest is with residents (and their visitors) who are already paying for the use of this space.


· Minster Baywatch refer to a Mr XXXs appeal ; this is not me, so I assume this is a lack of care with private personal data on their part.

Umkomaas

Seems ok, but you're well over your character limit - currently you're running at 2,366, so you need to crop it down some. For example:

Minster Baywatch have provided no evidence [STRIKE]to suggest[/STRIKE] that they correctly transferred liability from the driver [STRIKE]of the vehicle [/STRIKE]to the registered keeper [STRIKE]of the vehicle[/STRIKE] [STRIKE]and[/STRIKE] nor that PoFA was followed correctly.

Tidy up some of the other 'leggy' sentences; you may get enough characters back for other points you might wish to rebut.

Mr_Stroopwafel

My friend's vehicle has a ticket in the same place, same scenario. What's POPLA's stance on reusing the same appeal? As far as I can see the same points all apply just don't want to harm my chances. Obviously will adapt to the different keepers etc.

Also, once I'm done with this appeal, I am intending to make life as awkward as possible for MBW. Including possible claims for possible misuse of data and so on.
Any ideas?

Umkomaas

It's unlikely that POPLA would ever spot an appeal that is exactly the same as yours. There are a good number of assessors (precise number n/k) and the chance of the same assessor dealing with both cases is remote.

In any case, there is never a forum assisted appeal that is unique. Most have significant levels of plagiarism from the rich resource of previous appeals held here on the forum!