POPLA - incorrect amount on rejection letter

london1918

Hi all
I'm drafting my POPLA appeal according to the newbie's page and available templates. My main points are:
1. A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served - no Keeper Liability can apply.
[NTK never received]
2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge
3. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
4. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself
[Can I submit my own photos and text to describe the unclear signage to the template?]

Also, the rejection letter received from the parking company (with the POPLA Ref No) states an incorrect amount to be paid in case the POPLA rejects my appeal. In the letter, the discounted amount to be paid today is £60 and the full amount in case POPLA rejects is £10. Clearly a mistake on their side. Can I use this in my favour in my appeal? How?

Thank you all!!

Quentin

It's a typo!!

KeithP

Can I submit my own photos and text to describe the unclear signage to the template?

Yes you can.

Have you looked at any of the sample PoPLA appeals linked from post #3 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread?

Here's a quote from that post:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/p7ltb9rcr6zy7kn/Appeal_stage2_POPLA_ECP_draft5.pdf?dl=0

THAT IS WHAT A WINNING POPLA APPEAL CAN LOOK LIKE, VERY LONG AND WITH IMAGES.

london1918

Ok thanks, great appeal example, I'll use that as an inspiration.

I presume the letter typo on the payment amount is not useful at this stage.

But if I lose the appeal, is there any chance that I could use this error in my favour and only pay the printed amount £10? If, for some reason I feel inclined to pay

Quentin

No! As advised it's a typo.


Losing at POPLA doesn't mean you have to pay!

The_Slithy_Tove

Quentin wrote: »

No! As advised it's a typo.

Losing at POPLA doesn't mean you have to pay!

Alternatively if the POPLA appeal was lost, then a £10 cheque to PE stating that it is in full and final settlement as per their own correspondence. If they can't even copy'n'paste their standard rejection letter text properly, then that's their problem.

london1918

Thanks all for the comments.
One thing is still not clear after reading several posts:

If the NTK arrives late, this does not make the PCN 'void' but it means there is 'no keeper liability' possible.

If they are a firm which alleges 'keeper liability' under the POFA 2012 (which they don't have to!) the a postal PCN must arrive by day 14 if there was no windscreen ticket.

Or, the NTK must arrive with you between day 29 and day 57 if there was a windscreen PCN.

How can I check if U K P C "alleges 'keeper liability' under the POFA 2012"? so that I could use this as part of my POPLA appeal to enforce no keeper liability since the NTK never arrived?

They are an AOS member with the BPA, so would this be enough to confirm?

Many thanks

nosferatu1001

No, being in the BPA does not mean you HAVE to use POFA.

Given the NtK has never arrived, you state that they cannot have complied because no notice was served.
Expect them to send a mock up of one to POPLA .

london1918

Hi all

Just as an update, just got my decision from POPLA:

Decision: Successful

Assessor supporting rational for decision: The appellant states that there is no evidence of Landowner Authority. The British Parking Association Code of Practice states: 7.1 If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges. In the case file from the operator, it has not demonstrated that it owns the land or has authority from the landowner to operate in the car park. Having reviewed the evidence, I can see that the appellant is parked within the car park and has been issued with a PCN to the window of the vehicle for not being permitted to be parked there. However, there is no evidence to show that the operator has permission to issue PCNs in the car park. Therefore, I am not satisfied that the operator has provided enough evidence to show that the PCN has been issued correctly. As such, I conclude the PCN has not been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal. I note that the appellant has raised further grounds for appeal and documents for the appeal in this case, however as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I have not considered them.

The_Deep

Now complain to your MP, they have wasted your time.

It is the will of Parliament that these scammers be put out of business. Hopefully that will take place in the near future. The Bill has passed through the HOC without hitch, and goes to the Lords soon. In the meantime involve your MP, the poor dears are buckling under the weight of complaints about these scammers. Read this one which I wrote earlier

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers.

Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Third Reading in late November, and, with a fair wind, will become Law next year.

All three readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 6-7 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.

Castle

And complain to the DVLA as POPLA have confirmed that there's no Landowner authority and the PPC have breached their KADOE agreement.