NCP final notice for overstaying

Umkomaas

I suspect that the NCP system is set up to monitor whether a POPLA appeal has been submitted by day 28 (the official time limit for submission), and if they've not received notification from POPLA that the appeal has been made by day 28, their computers kick into action with final warning letter and/or a transfer of the case to debt collectors.

The fact that we've found a little 'give' in the POPLA deadline is a bit of a bonus. Rattling a cage might just see that flexi-window being closed.

The_Deep

Have you complained to your MP, you should as measures are being taken by Parliament to rein in these companies. (very often former clampers), and put out of business.

Hopefully that will take place in the near future. A 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.

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.

ohhdeeear

Thanks for support! Don't really want a Final Reminder and debt collector hassling me before POPLA appeal hasn't even been decided yet.

ohhdeeear

Sorry, reads funny - meant 'when' not 'before' popla even decided yet.

KeithP

Feel free to edit your posts whenever you like.

Coupon-mad

ohhdeeear wrote: »

Thanks for support! Don't really want a Final Reminder and debt collector hassling me before POPLA appeal hasn't even been decided yet.

But it's only letters. No debt collector comes knocking.

ohhdeeear

True, but added stress. Wanted to ask forum question but difficult when this forum is being observed. Sorry for being cryptic.

ohhdeeear

What a waste of time - after all the hours of researching, writing, complaining, etc, diligently following due process - POPLA assessor did not even consider my appeal document or rebuttal comments on a technicality. See my comments highlighting inaccuracies by assessor in their decision below.

POPLA Complaints acknowledge that there have been technical difficulties with their appeals portal which meant my appeal PDF did not upload properly, and when I discovered this, had to make numerous written complaints to ensure my appeal and rebuttal comments, which I had to email as a PDF, were included and considered by the assessor. After all the POPLA assurances, the assessor blythely says that he cannot consider evidence I provided, as uploaded after appeal (even though it’s POPLA’s fault with their own portal! Not sure if assessor told this or if he even cares - probably not). So that puts paid to my arguments on keeper’s liability or poor signage in changeover period.

Also worryingly, assessor is claiming that appellant has been identified as the driver, when from all evidence provided by operator, that I have seen, they have no evidence of identity or any confirmation from me. There is no transparency - assessor does not say on what evidence he bases this assertion. And if assessor refuses to consider my appeal evidence on a technicality, then it would seem there is no due process, or chance to fight this appeal fairly. Despite POPLA cocking it up with my appeal - there is no recourse to complain - POPLA are not even capable of running a !!!! up in a car park it would seem.

POPLA assessment and decision

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Stuart Lumsden

Only evidence I have seen from NCP was from their evidence pack which was standard and basic, at the submission stage - not available now on portal at decision stage which does not provide transparency of process. This pack evidence did not answer any points raised in previous appeal letters - or points raised in appellant's appeal (which POPLA failed to include as evidence for case as their portal prevented any appeal documents from being uploaded properly). Only operator evidence provided was photos of car entering/exiting and letters sent to keeper - no photos of signage current or from date of incident. If there was any subsequent evidence provided which assessor saw, who does not make clear what evidence was or source, then it has not been made available to appellant.

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to the appellant parking for longer than the time paid for.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has not submitted grounds for appeal, rather uploaded their grounds after the appeal was raised, as such I am unable to take this into account.


This is shocking - despite assurances by POPLA that appeal and rebuttal comments would be attached to case - this assessor contradicts these assertions. Had to raise a complaint with POPLA to say their portal was not uploading properly, after found out by accident portal had not uploaded PDF document properly. POPLA conceded in email that they are having issues with their portal. This assessor completely dismisses appeal provided by appellant because it was not supplied at time of appeal, even though clearly it has been acknowledged by POPLA there were problems with its own appeals portal.


Assessor supporting rational for decision

The appellant has identified as the driver of the vehicle on the day of the parking event. As such, I am considering the appellant’s liability for the PCN, as the driver.

Not sure what evidence assessor thinks there is to say appellant has identified as driver themselves or been identified by operator - there is no evidence provided by NCP in their evidence pack. Strongly stated by appellant in appeal document and appeal letters that no confirmation of who driver is. If there was any subsequent evidence after pack submission provided by NCP, it was not made available to appellant. Assessor does not say what this evidence is based on or where it came from.


When entering onto a private car park such as this one, any motorist forms a contract with the operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage in place sets out the terms and conditions of this contract.


Wrong - old signage from previous operator still in place - no evidence provided by NCP to dispute that - appellant has never seen any photo evidence provided by operator of any of their signage - and assessor has not even considered this point as he refused to include or consider appellant's appeal and rebuttal comments due to POPLA's technical failure.


The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park


when has NCP provided evidence of signage at any point? Not provided evidence of current signage or of signage on day in question, when signage was not completed in changeover !- no evidence in NCP pack


which states: “A Parking Charge Notice (PCN) may be issued for failure to comply with the Terms and Conditions, this includes the following breaches: Failure to pay all the charges due for your parking…PCN charges paid after 14 days £100”. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle, entering the car park at 14:48, and exiting at 16:19, totalling a stay of 1 hour 31 minutes. The operator has provided evidence to demonstrate that the appellant only paid for 1 hours worth of parking. The appellant has not submitted grounds for appeal, rather uploaded their grounds after the appeal was raised, as such I am unable to take this into account. POPLA is an evidence-based appeals service. All appeals are decided using the evidence and statements from the appellant and the parking operator, using the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice as guidance for an expectation of minimum standards I will however address the operators evidence pack to establish if the PCN was issued correctly. Upon review of the evidence pack provided by the operator there is clear and legible signage throughout the car park, I find this more than adequate to alert the motorist of parking terms and conditions. Furthermore, there is clear evidence that the appellant paid for 1 hour of parking via her phone, thus acknowledging that there are terms and conditions of parking. The operator has provided evidence to show that the appellant did not pay for any further parking, via way of it’s database which shows motorist’s Vehicle Registration Numbers (VRN). If the appellant did pay for further parking, then I can reliably say that they failed to input the correct VRN when doing so and thusly breached the terms and conditions of parking. When looking at appeals, POPLA considers whether a parking contract was formed and, if so, whether the motorist kept to the conditions of the contract. POPLA cannot allow an appeal if a contract was formed and the motorist did not keep to the parking conditions. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. Upon consideration of the evidence, the appellant did not comply with the terms and conditions by failing to pay for the whole period of parking. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.


Standard response without considering evidence provided by appellant, refused on a technicality, which POPLA should have resolved when POPLA at fault due to it being their technical failure.

ohhdeeear

Not sure how to complain to POPLA about their crummy unfair process.
Have sent as complaint to my MP though. They say there have been many complaints since this operator took over at this car park. But also concerned that POPLA's service isn't fit for purpose, self-serving, unfair, not following their own rules, etc, could go on....

Redx

you send a complaint to JOHN GALLAGHER , lead assessor at popla , by email