Keeper address not added in 1st appeal template. Parking firm replied after 28th day

PeterParker123

Thanks Redx

I just rang them and they said they will contact the IT department and if it was attached it should be on their system. If they find it they will attach it to the appeal again and send to the operator. Will hear from them in 48hrs.

The other appeal was attached ok.

PeterParker123

Update

I rang POPLA to ask about the missing PDF on the appeal and the lady I spoke to told me I.T will investigate but it will take 48 hrs. I had no update after 3 days so rang again and spoke to a different person who said the lady I spoke to was not in, and they had no access to any information she may had received from I.T and will chase it up. I was then told this appeal was due to be assessed mid Nov but would be put on hold and not to worry about the 7 days to comment on operator evidence. I asked if I could just send them the PDF via e-mail but was told to wait until they hear back from I.T.

The second appeal (with PDF attached), the operator didn't send anything within the 21 days. On the tracking page right now it has the 01/01/0001 submitted date.

Last week still had no correspondence regard the first appeal, so called again and was told their system had been having issues. They sent another note to I.T and said I should get updated via e-mail in a few days. Again nothing. I have since e-mailed a complaint with the PDF attached a few days ago with no reply.

Currently the tracking page for the first appeal is saying it's on the 3rd stage (without the PDF or my comments on operator evidence).

It's been 2 weeks since I rang the first time and still none the wiser. Not sure if I should just wait for a response from their I.T dept or continue ringing for updates which seem to go no where.

Coupon-mad

I would continue to email, not phone.

PeterParker123

I finally received a reply from POPLA's complaint department last week. They apologised and confirmed it was a system error and it has now been rectified. They have contacted the operator to inform them that the evidence is now attached and have given them another 21 days to comment.

Today I won the appeal for the 2nd case (which had the PDF attached) due to the operator failing to provide any evidence.

Thank you so much to everyone who took time out to comment and advise me.

In the 1st case, the operator payed to submit their evidence (thinking I didn't submit anything for the easy win). Now the evidence is attached, I'm assuming this will make them more likely to respond, even though both appeals are almost identical. Would POPLA offer them a refund for the system error?

Umkomaas

Would POPLA offer them a refund for the system error?

We have little knowledge about how POPLA finances work between them and their indirect pay masters.

Does it matter?

PeterParker123

Fair point.

beamerguy

I finally received a reply from POPLA's complaint department last week. They apologised and confirmed it was a system error and it has now been rectified.

How many times has there been a systems error ????

PeterParker123

Hey guys, finally got a decision and it was successful!

Decision:
Successful

Assessor Name:
xxxxxxxxxxx

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for the following reason: ‘parking for use only whilst using site facilities’.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has provided a document to POPLA which outlines his grounds for appeal. These grounds are as follows: • The entrance sign is inadequately positioned and the signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. • No site boundary defined. • Grace periods, BPA Code of Practice – non-compliant. • Surveillance camera code of practice/ General data protection regulation (GDPR) Non-compliance. • No photo evidence of the vehicle in contravention of the terms. • No evidence of landowner authority. • Operator procedures – non-compliance. • The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
Having reviewed this case, I am not satisfied that the driver has been identified. Therefore, I will be considering keeper liability. The operator has provided evidence of the signage displayed at the site, which outlines the terms and conditions of parking. The signage states: “Customer Car Park, this car park is controlled by warden patrols. If your vehicle remains in this car park or you fail to comply with any of the terms and conditions stated below at any time you agree to pay £100 parking charge notice; parking for use only whilst using site facilities”. The car park is patrolled by a parking attendant. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle parked in this car park on the date of the event. The operator has issued a PCN to the motorist for the following reasons: ‘parking for use only whilst using site facilities’. The appellant has raised numerous grounds for appeal. However, I will be focusing solely on the reason for the PCN issue in this case. When issuing a Parking Charge Notice, the burden of proof lies with the operator to demonstrate in its evidence that the motorist did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. However, I am not satisfied that the evidence has demonstrated this. The operator has indicated that the appellant has left the site, whilst his vehicle remained in the car park. The images that have been provided show the appellant’s vehicle parked. There is no sufficient evidence to suggest that the appellant left the site. There are images of a male walking towards the exit however, it is not clear that this was the driver of the vehicle and from these images, it appears that the appellant is still within the boundaries of the car park. As such, I am not satisfied that this PCN has been issued correctly as the evidence does not demonstrate a breach of the terms and conditions. I note that the appellant has raised other grounds for appeal however, as I have allowed the appeal on this reason alone, the other grounds raised do not require any further consideration.

I thought I would win by default as I wasn't alerted to any evidence pack sent by the PPC like the other appeal I won. Upon reading the decision, the assessor made their decision based on the original evidence that was submitted 2 months ago when my appeal was "lost". I wasn't given the opportunity to rebuttal them so I'm happy it went in my favour.

I'll now be making a few complaints to Tesco, my MP and especially ICO regarding GDPR Non compliance.

Thank you again everyone.

Half_way

Do not forget if there was a GDPR breach, and it was by an agent of Tesco, then TESCO will be jointly liable

beamerguy

I'll now be making a few complaints to Tesco, my MP and especially ICO regarding GDPR Non compliance.

Make sure you tell Dave Lewis the CEO of Tesco that he has
scammers in his car park.

His problem must be, just how many of his customers no longer shop at Tesco because of his scammer