POPLA Code received, help with next steps

devi123

Good morning ladies & gents,

PCN received through the post.

The driver parks fairly often in a space by a gym they use. There are green visitors bays. The driver pays via the app - the payment didn't go through as the app kicked back an error regardless of which payment method the keeper tried (bank card, Android pay).

It was chucking it down so the driver didn't go to check the sign for the number, just figured they'd chance it as it was always a parking warden there rather than ANPR and they've parked there a few times without getting a ticket.

Lo and behold they got a ticket through the post.

The driver went back to check the signs at the weekend (all located min 30 metres from the parking bay and not lit as can be seen in the photos which the camera did brighten) and saw that they had actually changed the parking location code by putting stickers over the top of the number. The app autocompletes the location code and name.

The appeal went to TPS and got rejected surprise. They've also indicated in their rejection letter that it was daylight when the vehicle entered so the signs would be visible. It was 9 minutes before sunset on the day in question - which would indicate they've lightened their images.

A second ticket was received, similarly appealed, and no rejection has been received yet.

Links below to ticket, signage and rejection letter - hope they suffice. If the appeal letter is required, please shout.

All correspondence has been sent to and from the keeper but no admission has been made.

Thanks in advance - also apologies if there are any errors in the posting of this.

h ttps://imageshack.com/i/pmonc9Rsj
h ttps://imageshack.com/i/pokX87mCj
h ttps://imageshack.com/i/pmiuhF9Sj
h ttps://imageshack.com/i/po9aEe4Gj
h ttps://imageshack.com/i/poGQveFjj
h ttps://imageshack.com/i/pnbx1wxgj
h ttps://imageshack.com/i/pol6G44Cj
h ttps://imageshack.com/i/pmZpCv9Nj
h ttps://imageshack.com/i/pokEHHU0j
h ttps://imageshack.com/i/plv1gCwOj
h ttps://imageshack.com/i/porUwkyWj
h ttps://imageshack.com/i/pniX6k3gj
h ttps://imageshack.com/i/pnobswjcj

Umkomaas

https://imageshack.com/i/pmonc9Rsj
https://imageshack.com/i/pokX87mCj
https://imageshack.com/i/pmiuhF9Sj
https://imageshack.com/i/po9aEe4Gj
https://imageshack.com/i/poGQveFjj
https://imageshack.com/i/pnbx1wxgj
https://imageshack.com/i/pol6G44Cj
https://imageshack.com/i/pmZpCv9Nj
https://imageshack.com/i/pokEHHU0j
https://imageshack.com/i/plv1gCwOj
https://imageshack.com/i/porUwkyWj
https://imageshack.com/i/pniX6k3gj
https://imageshack.com/i/pnobswjcj

What did you say in your appeal letter?

The_Deep

Nine minutes before sunset surely is not dark. The next steps are explained in the FAQs/stickies, have you read them?

devi123

The sun would have been so low as to render all the signage at the location illegible from any distance of more than a few feet.

The FAQs have been read - apologies, first timer through this process.

Would it be correct to assume the response would cover (including the accurate references from the BPA Code of Practice:

1The PPC fails to include the specific wording required by the Protection of Freedoms Act to recover payment from the registered keeper
2 Contrast and Illumination: the signs are illegible in the dark and in breach of the British Parking Association Code of Practice
3 The assertion that a driver can contract to perform an action that is forbidden is nonsense
4 Even if such a contract were possible, they changed the location code for the car park but did not update the auto-locate for the payment system, preventing its acceptance
5 Even if the payment system did not use auto-locate, their failure to provide a transition and additional signs is in breach of the British Parking Association Code of Practice Para 18.10
6 No T&Cs displayed anywhere for entry into the contract
7. Evidence of landowner authority not present
8. Evidence that the cameras have been checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images
9 Signage has reference to where visitors should park but no clarity on if charges apply to the visitor (only on external sign, not internal)
10 Operator hasn't allowed the recommended time allowance for the payment of the fees after the appeal has been rejected (recommended 35 days)
11 Entry sign is not compliant with British Parking Association Code of Practice in that it does not indicate that any terms & conditions apply
12. Entry sign is not compliant in that it does not carry any information from Group 1 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice
13. Entry sign is not compliant in that it uses Group 2 text much larger than Group 1 from the British Parking Association Code of Practice

Many thanks

Umkomaas

1The PPC fails to include the specific wording required by the Protection of Freedoms Act to recover payment from the registered keeper

This is the killer at POPLA provided you explain precisely how it fails. Please tell us where you believe it fails.

3 The assertion that a driver can contract to perform an action that is forbidden is nonsense

Good legal point (may go over POPLA's head, but a Judge would understand). But why were you trying to pay if parking was forbidden?

7. Evidence of landowner authority not present

Have you asked to see it? This should always be a POPLA appeal point whether you've asked to see it or not. Lots of PPCs fail on this.

8. Evidence that the cameras have been checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images

Gives the PPC something to deal with in responding to a POPLA appeal, but it's never ever won a POPLA case.

9 Signage has reference to where visitors should park but no clarity on if charges apply to the visitor (only on external sign, not internal)

As in PE v Beavis? Worth using if so.

10 Operator hasn't allowed the recommended time allowance for the payment of the fees after the appeal has been rejected (recommended 35 days)

I don't recognise this. Where does it come from? If it's from the BPA Code of Practice - paragraph number please.

11 Entry sign is not compliant with British Parking Association Code of Practice in that it does not indicate that any terms & conditions apply
12. Entry sign is not compliant in that it does not carry any information from Group 1 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice
13. Entry sign is not compliant in that it uses Group 2 text much larger than Group 1 from the British Parking Association Code of Practice

Might be worth pursuing - a bit like the camera accuracy point - gives the PPC something to respond to, but success on any of them in isolation (or even as a group) unlikely.

KeithP

You opening post is likely to cost you money.

Surely it was the driver who did the parking?

Perhaps your first substantive paragraph would be better worded as:

The driver parks fairly often in a space by a gym they use. There are green visitors bays. The driver pays via the app - the payment didn't go through as the app kicked back an error regardless of which payment method the driver tried (bank card, Android pay).

Please review the rest of your opening post and adjust similarly.

devi123

@KeithP - it's my understanding from pepipo that only the keeper and not the driver should be referred to - is this not correct?

Thanks

KeithP

devi123 wrote: »

@KeithP - it's my understanding from pepipo that only the keeper and not the driver should be referred to - is this not correct?

No, that is not correct and I cannot believe that you read that on Pepipoo.

Currently your opening post identifies the driver.
Did you perhaps read that the driver should never be identified?

devi123

This post is about to get a bit ugly! My apologies.

Umkomaas wrote: »

This is the killer at POPLA provided you explain precisely how it fails. Please tell us where you believe it fails.

POFA 4, 9.2©

©describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the end of that period, the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable;


Good legal point (may go over POPLA's head, but a Judge would understand). But why were you trying to pay if parking was forbidden?

No record of me trying to pay I doubt. The PPC is saying unauthorised parking. You can't contract for Unauthorised parking but the signs aren't clear - any thoughts?

Have you asked to see it? This should always be a POPLA appeal point whether you've asked to see it or not. Lots of PPCs fail on this.

No I haven't

Gives the PPC something to deal with in responding to a POPLA appeal, but it's never ever won a POPLA case.

As in PE v Beavis? Worth using if so.

From what I can glean, yes

I don't recognise this. Where does it come from? If it's from the BPA Code of Practice - paragraph number please.

22.12

Might be worth pursuing - a bit like the camera accuracy point - gives the PPC something to respond to, but success on any of them in isolation (or even as a group) unlikely.

Again - THANK YOU for taking the time to help.

devi123

Now amended to show the driver. Thank you.

devi123

Another one on POFA:

Schedule 4 of the protection of freedom act 2012, 9(2)(e):

(e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—
(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or
(ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;

From the parking ticket:

"As we do not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and having reasonable cause that a contravention occurred through a breach of the car park terms and licensing conditions, the vehicle details were passed to the driver and the Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) and your details were requested as the Registered Keeper on the date of the event. Or the Registered Keeper has named you as the driver on the date of the event"

Is it correct to assume: the difference here is that they are not inviting the keeper to pay NOR are they asking the keeper to send the name and address along?