Waiting PCN private area help needed on popla appeal

JeffBezos

KeithP wrote: »

That's 1,921 characters including spaces. Well done.

Well done you lot!!! Thanks!

Coupon-mad

In your considered (expert) opinions - what would you consider the chances of popla upholding this (joint help) rebuttal ? (I have zero experience obviously)

Maybe 95% likely you will win.

Umkomaas

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Maybe 95% likely you will win.

Unless you get a former nail technician, an ex-call centre operative or a budding soft !!!!!! author adjudicating your case, then it's a 'who knows' from me! But I think you should be ok!

JeffBezos

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Maybe 95% likely you will win.

Do Park Watch get another chance to refute my (our) statements or is that it and popla make a decision now? I'm assuming that's it?

Once again ALL - many thanks for your patience, time, advice and shared knowledge.

JeffBezos

Umkomaas wrote: »

Unless you get a former nail technician, an ex-call centre operative or a budding soft !!!!!! author adjudicating your case, then it's a 'who knows' from me! But I think you should be ok!

Ha! Thanks Umkomass !

Umkomaas

JeffBezos wrote: »

Do Park Watch get another chance to refute my (our) statements or is that it and popla make a decision now?

Yet more questions. No they don't!

JeffBezos

Umkomaas wrote: »

Yet more questions. No they don't!

Sorry,

submitting to POPLA first thing in the morning (after checking back here one last time before I do)

Really appreciate every bit of help - I'd have wasted more hours trying to word various points that would have been a complete waste of time without your decisive advice not to bother.

JeffBezos

Hi people - result received today as follows:

Decision Successful

Assessor Name Amy Butler

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator’s case is that the appellant’s vehicle waited in a no waiting area.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal. These are as follows; • The appellant states the operator has not applied a grace period at the end or beginning of the parking period. • The appellant states there are no entrance signage or signage in the site that are compliant. • The appellant states the operator does not have the authority from the landowner to issue parking charges. • The appellant states the operator has not complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. • The appellant states the vehicle images on the parking charge are not compliant. • The appellant states the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system is neither reliable nor accurate. • The appellant states the signs fail to warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
From the evidence the operator has provided, I can see that the operator is pursuing the appellant as the hirer of the vehicle, as such, the provisions laid out in PoFA 2012, will need to be followed in order to transfer liability from the keeper of the vehicle, to the hirer of the vehicle. PoFA 2012, paragraph 4 (1) states, “the creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle”. This continues to state in Section 13 (2) “The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking 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. Followed by section 13 (5) “The documents mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) must be given by- (a) Handing them to the creditor; (b) Leaving them at any address which is specified in the notice to keeper as an address at which documents may be given to the creditor or to which payments may be sent; (c) Sending them by post to such an address so that they are delivered to the address within the period mentioned in that sub-paragraph”. From the evidence provided to me by the operator, I can see that a notice to keeper was issued to a hire company, followed by a notice to hirer. As such, I would expect the operator to demonstrate that they then provided the relevant documents to the hirer, as required in PoFA 2012. There has not been evidence provided to demonstrate that these documents were sent to the hirer. As such, the operator has not shown that they have followed PoFA 2012, section 13, “notice to hirer”. In this case, I can only conclude that PoFA 2012 was not followed and therefore, the Parking Charge Notice was not issued correctly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal. I note the appellant has raised further grounds of appeal. However, I do not need to address these as I have allowed the appeal.

Obviously I will never know if any of my other points would have won this appeal?

However - What's very interesting is that last week Park Watch put up a brand new (small) sign on the entrance gates to the service area! Coincidence or something else?

This appeal was at the location: Rugby Central Shopping Centre - Service Yard 3. (which used to be called "clock towers shopping centre")

Umkomaas

Good win. :T

As such, the operator has not shown that they have followed PoFA 2012, section 13, “notice to hirer”. In this case, I can only conclude that PoFA 2012 was not followed and therefore, the Parking Charge Notice was not issued correctly.

Six years on and they still have no clue how to transfer liability to the hirer. It took the skimdustry over two years to work out that they had to state who the creditor was on their NtK, then it's only in the past twelve months that a number have got the hang of the correct PoFA warning for holding the keeper liable. We really are not dealing with the sharpest knives in the drawer.

You could consider whether a claim might be made against PW for misusing your personal data - send a LBC (£250 seems about the norm) and see how they respond. Issue a MCOL if no suitable response.

They didn't have the correct paperwork (hirer agreement) and as they are the 'professionals' in private parking, they should be well aware that without the paperwork, they had no legitimate reason to attempt to issue charges against you.

It's high time PPCs faced some consequence for wantonly throwing charges around with abandon, letting motorists, most of whom have no idea how to deal with this stuff, to pick up the pieces, or pay the bill!

JeffBezos

Umkomaas wrote: »

Good win. :T


Six years on and they still have no clue how to transfer liability to the hirer. It took the skimdustry over two years to work out that they had to state who the creditor was on their NtK, then it's only in the past twelve months that a number have got the hang of the correct PoFA warning for holding the keeper liable. We really are not dealing with the sharpest knives in the drawer.

You could consider whether a claim might be made against PW for misusing your personal data - send a LBC (£250 seems about the norm) and see how they respond. Issue a MCOL if no suitable response.

They didn't have the correct paperwork (hirer agreement) and as they are the 'professionals' in private parking, they should be well aware that without the paperwork, they had no legitimate reason to attempt to issue charges against you.

It's high time PPCs faced some consequence for wantonly throwing charges around with abandon, letting motorists, most of whom have no idea how to deal with this stuff, to pick up the pieces, or pay the bill!

Thanks - what's an "LBC" and then what's an MCOL?
Cheers!:beer: