Help with popla appeal, only received notice to hirer *REVISED POPLA DRAFT ADDED* submitting soon

Edna_Basher

Umkomaas wrote: »

Easy enough to get a link/printout from the Companies House 'People' tab relating to the landowner.

Indeed - we've done exactly that a few times now - I think it may be giving the "sector experts" a bit of a headache

Umkomaas

Edna_Basher wrote: »

Indeed - we've done exactly that a few times now - I think it may be giving the "sector experts" a bit of a headache

Good stuff EB.

Coupon-mad

Edna_Basher wrote: »

Beware of guidance issued by POPLA's so-called "sector experts" to the POPLA assessors.

In the case of an "appeal" lodged by a company, POPLA requires evidence that the person submitting the "appeal" for and on behalf of that company is authorised to do so, to the extent that authority must come from a person who is registered with Companies House as an officer of the company - even though this is above and beyond what is required by the Courts in Small Claims cases.

Also, in the case of company "appeals", POPLA's "sector experts" have told assessors that the only conclusion to be made is that the driver was an employee of the company and was acting on company business at the time of the alleged parking incident. This is total nonsense of course and if you are in a position to declare that the driver was not on company business then you need to do so. Alternatively, you will need to explain why on the balance of probabilities the driver was not on company business.

Effectively POPLA's "sector experts" have said that any person driving a company vehicle has the authority to bind the company to a contract with the PPC - even if they are not an employee of that company. On the other hand, the "sector experts" have also said that only a person with express written authorisation from a company director can dispute the parking charge.

Of course, the "sector experts" have dug themselves into a hole because in order to remain independent and impartial, POPLA must surely apply the same requirement upon any landholder witness statement or contract included in the PPC's evidence pack. These are often signed by Customer Services Managers, Estates Managers etc. who cannot tell POPLA that they have the necessary authority - this can only come from someone who is registered as a director with Companies House (to quote POPLA's own words).

Very good point. I bet you have fun with these, Edna B.

Shellz090

Thought I would post an update on my current situation with my dealings with ncp.

After a lot of waiting and back and forth with popla I recieved the decision that my appeal hadn't been successful.
I will include some of the details they had given as to why below....

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant has been identified as the named hirer of the vehicle, as such I am considering their liability for the PCN as the hirer. When parking on private land, a motorist accepts the terms and conditions of the site by parking their vehicle and enters in to a parking contract with the operator. The terms and conditions should be stipulated on the signs displayed within the car park to allow the motorist to decide if they wish to accept or not. In assessing this case I have looked at the signage on site to confirm if the terms and conditions of parking were made clear. The operator has provided photographs of the signs on site showing the advertised terms and conditions.

The photographs show signs that state: “Up to hour £1.00” and “Up to 2 hours £2.50”. The signs also warn “Failure to do so may result in the issue of a PCN” There is also evidence to show that the terms and conditions signs are placed at regular intervals around the site. In the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, paragraph 18.3 states: “signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including the parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving.” Section 18.3 also explains, that signs “must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language so that they are easy to see, read and understand.”
In this respect, I am satisfied that the signs do comply with BPA Code of Practice in making it clear what the terms and conditions of the parking contract are and that the potential consequences of non-adherence to the terms have been made fully available.

The car park in question is monitored by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the vehicle entering the car park at 10:30 and leaving at 12:21 on the day of the parking event, a total stay of 1 hour 51 minutes. The operator has also provided a copy of a system generated report showing that the appellant’s vehicle registration was recorded at the payment machine at 10:35 making a payment of £2.00 (entitling up to 1 hour). The PCN was subsequently issued for being parked longer than the time paid for.
I understand the appellant has challenged the accuracy of ANPR, but in this case I must advise that the time spent on site against the time paid for does not present a case of a marginal overstay. In this regard, I must consider the ANPR evidence is fit for purpose in documenting a potential 51 minute overstay.
I note the appellant has challenged their liability for the PCN on the basis it was not issued under the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 (POFA) and that no driver has been named. However, whilst I am satisfied that the operator did comply with POFA when issuing the original notice to keeper I must also note that in their original appeal Kittle photographic indicated that one their drivers had made purchase of a ticket but that had not been retained. In this regard I have no doubt that the operator has subsequently pursued the correct liable party and that they have indicated the presence of one of their drivers on site on the day of the alleged contravention.

In respect of landowner authority, the operator has provided POPLA with a copy of the HM Land Registry Register of title to show that NCP is the proprietor. I am satisfied that the relevant authority is in place for NCP to manage parking on this and, in accordance with my role, I will base my decision on the principle of whether the PCN was issued correctly. In this case it would appear that the driver did make a payment of £2.00 which was potentially a genuine error, as the tariff for 2 hours parking is £2.50. However, I am unable to make an allowance for this in my capacity. Ultimately, the payment made was insufficient for the time spent on site. Therefore, I can only conclude the PCN was issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

I swiftly recieved a letter from "trace debt collections" stating that I now owe £160 within the next 2 weeks ����

At this point I'm unsure whether to continue the battle as if I ignore the letters and it does end up at the court stage I'm guessing I don't really have a leg to stand on.

Coupon-mad

Can you add about 10 paragraph breaks into that, to break it up so we can read it?

POPLA Decisions always copy like that as as wall of words but help us to read it!

Shellz090

There we go should he a bit easier on the eye

Coupon-mad

So are they pursuing a company that was named as Hirer, yes?

This reasoning is wrong:

I note the appellant has challenged their liability for the PCN on the basis it was not issued under the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 (POFA) and that no driver has been named.

However, whilst I am satisfied that the operator did comply with POFA when issuing the original notice to keeper I must also note that in their original appeal XXXX Photographic indicated that one their drivers had made purchase of a ticket but that had not been retained.

In this regard I have no doubt that the operator has subsequently pursued the correct liable party and that they have indicated the presence of one of their drivers on site on the day of the alleged contravention.

I suggest you draft a complaint to email to POPLA's complaints@ email address shown in their FAQS.

Have another look at what your appeal actually said about 'no Hirer Liability' and para 13/14 of the POFA, and look at the documents that had to accompany the NTH when it was sent to the hirer.

No such documents were produced in evidence, were they?

And the driver wasn't on company business (was it evening/weekend)?

Thus, there can be no transfer of liability to the Hirer firm. It is NOT acceptable to say ''the previous initial NTK (that the hirer is never served with, that went to the LEASE firm/owner!) was a POFA one'' if the NTH was NOT!

And it is not enough to then make a leap that the company knows a driver bought a ticket. That doesn't suggest that a driver was on company business and nor does it make up for a NTH that had NO POFA Para 13/14 DOCUMENT ENCLOSURES.

Your POPLA appeal said:

Paragraph 14 (2) (a) specifies that in addition to delivering a Notice to Hirer within the relevant period, the Creditor must also provide the Hirer with a copy of the documents mentioned in Paragraph 13(2) (i.e. (a) a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b) a copy of the hire agreement; and (c) a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement), together with a copy of the Notice to Keeper.

The Operator did not provide us with copies of any of these documents, (a), (b) or (c).

Paragraph 14 (5) (b) specifies that the Notice to Hirer must refer the hirer to the information contained in the Notice to Keeper. The Operator's Notice to Hirer does not even refer to the Notice to Keeper. This is a fundamental omission, especially given that the Operator did not provide us with a copy of the Notice to Keeper as required under Paragraph 14 (2) (a). Consequently, the Operator failed to provide us with much of the information required to be included in the Notice to Keeper under Paragraph 9 (2) of Schedule 4 of POFA.

And that has been ignored.

Show us your draft complaint before you email it to POPLA. I am sure Edna Basher would like to chip in with comments.

Shellz090

Coupon-mad wrote: »

So are they pursuing a company that was named as Hirer, yes?

This reasoning is wrong:
I suggest you draft a complaint to email to POPLA's complaints@ email address shown in their FAQS.

Have another look at what your appeal actually said about 'no Hirer Liability' and para 13/14 of the POFA, and look at the documents that had to accompany the NTH when it was sent to the hirer.

No such documents were produced in evidence, were they?

And the driver wasn't on company business (was it evening/weekend)?

Thus, there can be no transfer of liability to the Hirer firm. It is NOT acceptable to say ''the previous initial NTK (that the hirer is never served with, that went to the LEASE firm/owner!) was a POFA one'' if the NTH was NOT!

And it is not enough to then make a leap that the company knows a driver bought a ticket. That doesn't suggest that a driver was on company business and nor does it make up for a NTH that had NO POFA Para 13/14 DOCUMENT ENCLOSURES.

Your POPLA appeal said:

And that has been ignored.

Show us your draft complaint before you email it to POPLA. I am sure Edna Basher would like to chip in with comments.

Thanks for your reply,

Do you think that after Ive sent the email stating these facts that it would require a "second opinion" so to speak?

As the company had never received these documents the first case I had thought that it would have been enough, But as I thought the comments made from the company in the first NCP appeal box have come back to bite me in the rear.

With regards to my complaint to POPLA I'm guessing that is my main point of argument that it has not been taken into consideration that there was none of the required documents sent with the original NTH?

Fruitcake

You also need to challenge the comment that the driver has been identified, after first double checking what was sent to the scammers and PoPLA.