SpringParking PCN against the company's truck

Coupon-mad

There is no 'sending it off' to POPLA. No forms, no posting snail mail. Just checking you do know to simply upload it online under 'OTHER' (only, no other boxes!)?

none existent

has no word 'none' in that phrase and should be:

non-existent.

boundry

should be:

boundary

You can't cite para 9(2) and 8(2) of the POFA, only one or the other.

I think you need to add the template that says the appellant company has not been shown to be the individual or party liable. That's in the NEWBIES thread along with the long template about dodgy signs that you can add (as well as your own points about the layby lack of signs).

And here I have toned down my ''don't you dare'' rant at POPLA and have added that the driver was using a cafe outside of paid work hours, in his own time:

It is important to note that the vehicle was not being used 'on behalf of' the company by any known driver 'on duty' at the material time. The driver was using a cafeteria and was not on work business at the material time when the vehicle was at that unmarked layby. The driver can use the vehicle for their own purposes and was using a cafe outside of paid work hours, in his own time. No delivery or work was being undertaken on our behalf whatsoever at that time, and - given the fact that the NTK is non-POFA compliant - we cannot be held liable just because we (as a company) are the keeper of the vehicle, in this instance.

POPLA kindly note: your so-called 'Sector Expert' should be ashamed of the recent attempt to twist cases in favour of the 'sector' with a ridiculous conclusion out of the blue in some cases with a company keeper, involving trotting out a baseless and unevidenced assumption that, that an unknown person, even a wife or driver (authorised and insured) child of the employee, out doing their shopping at the weekend, or getting lunch at a cafeteria (as here), is somehow 'carrying out duties' for the company. How POPLA thought for one second that it can assert that a company (not a natural person) appellant can be considered to be 'by proxy' the (natural person) driver beggars belief.

POPLA, if you dare to engage that template answer - which surely must be in the recycling bin already, along with that Sector ''Expert''s CV - your decision will be passed to Trading Standards and the Secretary of State for Transport for them to read and weep. You have no evidence whatsoever to leap to that flawed conclusion to keep your 'parking sector' paymasters happy, and POPLA being an evidence-based service, cannot assume, nor make it up as you go along.

andrewlato81

Sorry for late update but been busy recently, so this is how it happened:


On 11th June I appealed to Popla saying more or less what's been posted above plus a lot of pics, on or around 10th July I logged onto their system to find that Spring Parking supplied evidence on 01/01/0001???


I then sent Popla this email:


Dear Popla,


We have logged in to your system to checked the progress of our appeal. Your system shows that an operator submitted evidence on 01/01/0001???



We have not received copy of such evidence, which is unfair and against the rules. The above date of submitted evidence is also wrong, which makes the whole proces of appealing looking like a farse.


Please provide correct information to us so we can assess operators evidence and make sure that information within it is true and accurate.


Regards,
XX


I got reply on 16th July:


[FONT=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial]Dear XX
[/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial]Thank you for contacting POPLA.[/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial]The operator has not provided an evidence pack for this appeal, therefore, I am unable to send this information to you.[/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial]We are currently awaiting for an assessor to be allocated to your appeal then a decisin will be made.[/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial]We will be in touch with a decision.[/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial]Kind Regards
POPLA Team[/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial]On 25th July I got an email from POPLA that decision has been made. After logging in, I discovered that Spring Parking Ltd has not provided any evidence whatsoever and my appeal was upheld:[/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial] [/FONT]
Decision
Successful



Assessor summary of operator case
In this case the operator has not provided any evidence or information to support the reason why it has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN).


Assessor summary of your case
In response to the PCN the appellant has advised that operator has not included the correct information on the notice that was issued and has continued to pursue the registered keeper after they appealed the notice received. They have also challenged; the signage at the site; whether the operator has a compliant land owner contract to manage the site; the correct application of grace periods; and the operator's compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. To support the appeal they have provided several photograph of the signage at the site and a word document. I have been unable to open the document however the appellants evidence would not change my decision for this appeal I have not taken any further action to request a further copy.


Assessor supporting rational for decision
As the operator has not provided any evidence or information to support the PCN that has been issued, I find that it has been issued incorrectly and allow the appeal with no need to review any further information or evidence provided.


[FONT=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial]So for those of you that have helped me with it -I'd like to say big THANK YOU. You have saved me some £££.[/FONT]

[FONT=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial]Thank you again everybody who chipped in, and good luck to all fighting their cases against those muppets.[/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial]AJL
[/FONT]

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)

coolkiu00

Thanks for your great comments, I am also cherishing the same things, you are my motivation to try!