ONE parking Solution

nosferatu1001

This isnt a councter claim, its just their response to your appeal. Dont use court terms for a POPLA appeal....

State that OPS are required to postiively identify the driver. STating someone has grey hair and a driver has grey hair doesnt mean they are the same person. After all, on the balance of probabilities one person with greay hair is quite likely to know other people with grey hair

This is nothing more than hearsay dressed up as some form of fact, and the operator has no actual evidence to back up their assertion
To repeat, I am not the driver and the operator has not proven otherwise. The appeal must succeed.

Erinon

Thanks Nosferatu1001 - apologies for using the wrong terminology - I'm not an expert in these matters.

So all I need to say on the POPLA website in reply to their response is:

"The operator has no actual evidence to back up their assertion and have not proven who the driver is."

Should I wait until POPLA resond to my query about the pictures not being available on hteir website and asking them to make them available to me?

Thanks as always.

nosferatu1001

No, that isnt what I suggested. You need to remind POPLA that going "ahah, grey hair!" doesnt mean the person is the same,a nd given a positive denial you are the driver from you in your appeal AND NOW, the operators hearsay falils as YOUR STATEME NT is evidence. Theres is not .

You only have 7 days, so NO you do NOT WAIT - you file your response before teh deadline.

Erinon

Hi,
@nosferatu1001 - I tried to send you a PM but your inbox is full

How does this sound,

"That the operator believes the driver has grey hair and assumes I have grey hair does not mean they are the same person. Most people over 45 have grey hair. I was not the driver and the operator has not proved who the driver was. The operator needs to prove who the driver was."

Should I mention that the operator doesnt make any comments on the other 5 points I initially raised ? (copied below for ease of reading.)

1.) Notice to Keeper not served in accordance with Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
2) Driver not identified
3) Appellant not shown to be the person liable
4) BPA Code requires extra signs where a site is newly changed to alert drivers to restrictions
5) Lack of grace period; predatory ticketing
6) Inadequate Signage and Signage non- compliant with BPA

KeithP

Yes, you must make a comment about all the points you raised that the operator has not commented on.

Something along the lines of "as the operator has not disagreed with my assertion about xyz, then clearly they accept that point".

Erinon

Hi All,

Thanks again forn the input. I've drafted up my reply to the operatoirs responce. All feedback welcome.


The operator has only responded to one item and partly one other, neither of which are any more than opinion. Taking them in the order of my original appeal:

1.) Notice to Keeper not served in accordance with Schedule 4 of POFA 2012

• The operator has not contested this point so obviously agrees with it.

2.) The driver has not been identified

• That the operator believes the driver has grey hair and assumes I have grey hair. This does not mean they are the same person. Most people over 45 have grey hair. I was not the driver and the operator has not proved who the driver was.

3.) Appellant not shown to be the person liable

• The operator again has not contested this point and clearly accepts this point.

4.) BPA Code requires extra signs where a site is newly changed to alert drivers to restrictions

• The operator again has not contested this point and clearly accepts this point.

5) Lack of grace period; predatory ticketing

• The operator again has not contested this point and clearly accepts this point.

6) Inadequate Signage and Signage non- compliant with BPA

• The operator claims the signs are BPA approved. In that case they need to provide evidence of this. The current, in place, photographs I provided clearly show they are not.

• The operator does not contest the point that there is inadequate signage and so obviously agrees.

As can be seen the operator has, by not responding to several of the issues, agreed that this appeal should be successful.

Erinon

Hi everyone,

Do any of our mentors have anything to add to my last post regarding my reply to the operators responce to my popla appeal.

Much appreciate all the support you guys give.

Rgds - Erinon

Coupon-mad

Looks fine, you will win this one.

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.

Rarely have I read such a desperate load of tripe, almost as deluded as the rantings of a madman.

Erinon

Hi all,

After the initial response to my appeal, I wrote in stating I couldn't see the information and photos OPS were referring to. Today I received them and two things stand out:

1 - The time stamps on the photos show a total lapsed time of 2mins 23 secs from when the vehicle entered and left the parking space. I intend to add this as evidence of not given a grace period.

2 - They have included the contract they have with the landlord’s agent. It has one section that I think might be relevant. Under a section titled - "Definitions” it states:

"A PCN is affixed to the driver/vehicle for being in breach of parking regulation etc etc".

As no PCN was affixed to my vehicle - I just received a notice to keeper through the post - should I highlight this to POPLA? Something along the lines of, “OPS contract with the landlord states they must affix the PCN to the vehicle.In this case not only were they too late in sending the NTK, they are not contracted to do so and so do not have the landlord’s permission."

Thoughts?

Coupon-mad

Yes to both!

I am still laughing about the ''grey haired gentleman'' online stalking OPS desperately carried out, unbelievable!