ONE parking Solution

Umkomaas

Erinon wrote: »

Hi All,

Has anyone had a chance to look through my POPLA appeal to OPS?

Seeing how busy this board is I realise it might take some time.

Kind regards

At over 5,250 words long, extending to 14 pages of A4, it's a big ask - and it's a similar ask that we get from any number of posters almost every day of the week. It's relentless. And that's before we have even more bulky court defences thrown in (usually headed 'URGENT'!) for critical, detailed reading and analysis each day.

As you rightly say the forum is extremely busy, it's holiday season (some regulars are away) and even at the best of times there are fewer regulars than you can count on the fingers of two hands.

I've looked at the headings for each of your appeal sections and you seem to have most bases covered - other than 'No Landowner Authority' - any reason why?

In the body of the appeal, #3 has no text after it. Any reason?

Turning now to the one appeal point where you can deliver the fatal blow - No Keeper Liability. You must give the assessor all the ammunition you can deliver. If they just take the date of issue of the NtK, at face value, it could conceivably have been delivered by 21/07, and that will have been within PoFA limits. You say you received it on 25/07. I'm afraid, from recent experience, that where there is any element of doubt, POPLA do seem to be siding with the PPC.

So you must emphasise that it was received on 25/07, and, if the PPC argues otherwise, demand they produce either 'Signed For' evidence of an earlier delivery, or a copy of their 'Certificate of Posting' from the Post Office. (They won't have either ).

Do you have the envelope the NtK was delivered in? Was it second class delivery? That would be very useful evidence on your part.

No Keeper Liability is the nail you have to really hammer home. The point you are making on this is a bit lost in all the usual copy and paste regurgitated detailed stuff we see (ad nauseam) from PoFA - and assessors must glaze over when they see it crossing their desks daily - and the real danger for you is that they miss this critical paragraph in the verbiage, so you're going to have to make sure it stands out from the crowd, or risk an oversight.

Erinon

HI Umkomaas,

Thank you for taking the time - I'm sure I'm one of many who appreciate it.

I'll go through it again tonight and emphasise the No keeper liability.
Regarding the "No land owner authority" bit - when I wrote to the landlord - he basically said they'd got OPS in to stop people parking. I quote, "We have arranged that the parking control is carried out by a company who will have their own complaints procedure to justify their actions. Basically there is no parking on site for shoppers, only on road parking."

I'll look at how to get that into it.

Regarding point #3 - I have text relating to this, it was point #2 " Driver not identified" that is empty as I still need to find some template to work from.

Thanks again

KeithP

Erinon wrote: »

...it was point #2 " Driver not identified" that is empty as I still need to find some template to work from.

That template is in post #3 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread under the heading:

- The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge

Coupon-mad

Errrmmm...2017?

Remove this awful introduction, can't stand people copying this bad grammer with 'I' followed by a comma (eeuurggghhh...where do people keep finding that intro?):

I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated 20/07/2017 acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the Operator, One Parking Solutions was submitted and acknowledged by the Operator on 31/07/2017 and rejected via an email dated 06/08/2018. I contend that I, as the keeper, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:

Umkomaas

Regarding the "No land owner authority" bit - when I wrote to the landlord - he basically said they'd got OPS in to stop people parking.

Did he? Did he say he'd signed a contract with OPS?

I'd still stick in 'No Landowner Authority' and let them come back with proof. If they cannot find the contract or don't submit it, they are, as The Deep would say, Donald Ducked! Let them do all the work to prove their case - it's not your job to prove anything for them.

It gives them extra work and may be enough to force them to capitulate.

Regarding point #3 - I have text relating to this, it was point #2

Yep, you're right.

Erinon

Thanks for feedback.

I've corrected the english and filled in the gaps.

Also clarified the main point about No Keeper Liability.

1drv.ms/w/s!AtrZ4_98wJmblYAgMxNEVDFvAUIPDA

Hopefully this is good to go now.

Rgds

Coupon-mad

That is a lovely POPLA appeal, full of info & pictures - a work of Art! OPS will fold.

You are missing a number 3, so I would just add:

3. In addition to the late service of the NTK, the document is not compliant with Schedule 4, paragraph 9 in wording and noticeably, does not use the statutory warning about keeper liability in 9(2)f. Therefore it can be concluded that the operator knowingly served a 'non-POFA' NTK and as such, the POPLA Assessor need read no further, and cannot find me liable in law.

System

the POPLA Assessor need read no further

Kerching .... £27 in the bag and move onto the next one. The POPLA assessors must love you.

Erinon

Thanks Everyone.

Appeal lodged under "Other "

I'll let you know how it goes.

Erinon

I've had a reply from POPLA with OPS's counter claim:

They have obviously done some googling and think I am the driver. The pictures were not available on the POPLA site so I have asked them tfor copies before I reply.

Initial thoughts on my reply to popla would be appreciated.

"The appellant entered into a contractual agreement upon parking on site. The terms are laid out on the signage on site including at the entrance and state that parking is permitted for vehicles displaying a valid permit and/or pre-authorised vehicles parked wholly within their allocated parking space. By parking or remaining on site otherwise than in accordance with the above the driver agrees to pay a parking charge. The driver made use of the facilities and went about their business. At the time of the contravention the appellant was not displaying a valid permit, and nor did they have pre-authorisation to park their vehicle in the car park as they were not on the exemption list and therefore agreed to pay a parking charge. The Appellant states that he is not the driver of the vehicle, however a quick search on the internet brings up his photo on Linked In and XXX CLub websites. The ABC Linked In profile includes mention of a position at XXX Club . On the ZZZ Club website ABC is listed as the contact for YYY Club and the email address matches that provided the Appellant. YYY Club is part of XXX Club. The Linked In and XXX Club photos show that ABC is a grey-haired gentleman. The motorist in the contravention photos is also a grey-haired gentleman. We would challenge the Appellant that he is in fact the driver of the vehicle. It is the driver’s responsibility to ensure they are parked in accordance with the terms. If they are unable to do so they should either, make alternative parking arrangements or otherwise agree to pay a parking charge. If the driver is unsure, our number is on the boards and the signs are BPA approved. Not seeking keeper liability as the appellant is clearly the driver. "