Has a bullet been dodged?

KeithP

Entirely up to you.

Please remember that if you lose at PoPLA you face up to six years wondering whether or not a you will face a court claim.

Spursmad

Keith Thanks for being patient

Have found two cases which might fit the situation

I send off the appeal as following

Re PCN number:

I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a formal complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner and to my MP.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. Since your PCN is a vague template, I require ALL photos taken and an explanation of the allegation and your evidence, i.e.:

- If the allegation concerns a PDT machine, the data supplied in response to this appeal must include the record of payments made - showing partial VRNs - and an explanation of the reason for the PCN, because your Notice does not explain it.

- If the allegation involves an alleged overstay of minutes, your evidence must include the actual grace period agreed by the landowner. If you fail to evidence the actual grace period that applies at this site or suggest that only one period applies, this will be disregarded as an attempt to mislead. In the absence of evidence, it will be reasonably taken to be a minimum of twenty minutes (ten on arrival and ten after parking time) in accordance with the official BPA article by Kelvin Reynolds about 'observation periods' on arrival being additional and separate to a 'grace period' at the end.

- in all cases, you must include a close up actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date.

Formal note:
Should you later pursue this charge by way of litigation, note that service of any legal documents by email is expressly disallowed and you are not entitled to assume that the data in this dispute/appeal remains the current address for service in the future.

Yours faithfully,


And on getting a POPLA appeal ref either one of these The first ,i think ,covers my situation, short but succinct and to the point in basic English


So if I have this right....

1. The liability of the PCN is on the driver

2. If the driver cannot be identified, the PCC can transfer the liability of the PCN to the keeper

3. For the PCC to transfer liability to the keeper, the PCC have had to have followed POFA2012. Although not mandatory for PCC's to follow POFA2012, they cannot transfer liability to the keeper without following the POFA2012 protocol.

4. POFA2012 (in my case) via APNR means they should have sent the PCN to me within 14 days after the date of breach.

5. Is the transfer of liability of the PCN from driver to keeper via following POFA2012 a legal stipulation?

If P/Eye know they have not followed the POFA2012 why are they sending me the PCN? They must know they cannot make me liable for the PCN due to their failure to follow POFA2012.

Is it their attempt to extract the drivers information from me? Or to scare the uneducated (me up to this point!) into paying? I suspect both, as both outcomes would be a win for them.
Originally posted by Nice_guy”
You have this right. POPLA assessors are not getting things right all the time at present - just read the latest POPLADECISIONS thread.

So Keep it simple and a one point out of time appeal.

1. I am the Registered Keeper

2. The liability for this PCN is on the driver whom I decline to name

3. If the driver cannot be identified, the PCC can transfer the liability of the PCN to the keeper as long as they follow the mandatory requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

4. For the PCC to transfer liability to the keeper, this being an ANPR case, the Parking company has to serve the Notice to Keeper within 14 days. The date of the alleged parking offence was the 25/08.2018, and the PCN/NTK has an issue date on it of 27/09/2018 This is clearly outside the 14-day timescale.

The result is that, under law, I, as registered keeper, can not be liable for this charge.

second one on post after due to length being over 25000!

KeithP

You seem to understand the situation.

Spursmad

Well i wanted to get this underway, but my IP has been refused access for several days. As you can see all sorted now

Because of this glitch i had to pop across to pepipoo and used their template, which fitted exactly, as they have not complied with 9(2) e . They used the phrase' I should advise them as to who was driving, rather than' inviting' me to name them, which i have no intention of doing
The appeal was worded as per this from pepipoo


I am the keeper of the above vehicle and am in receipt of the PCN you issued. I have no liability on this matter as you have failed to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, giving the invitation mandated by section 9 (2) (e) of the Act. You cannot therefore transfer liability from the driver at the time to me, the keeper..

There is no legal requirement to identify the driver at the time and I will not be doing so.

Any further communication with me on this matter, apart from confirmation of no further action and my details being removed from your records, will be considered vexatious and harassment. This includes communication from any Debt Collection companies you care to instruct.

When the popla code is issued,i can pad it out by adding the notice was outside the 14 days as laid down and although the signs in the car park refer to a notice at the entrance, the store can be access via another entrance where no sign exists

IIRC there was another case whereby they advised that as they are not invoking POFA 2012, they have 35 days in which to advise the RK, so could they ignore the POPLA result if it goes against them and still chase the RK?

Coupon-mad

If a POPLA result goes against a PPC the decision is binding on them and they MUST cancel it.