We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
POPLA appeal MET BP Stansted
Dom_256
Posts: 4 Newbie
As the keeper of a vehicle I received a parking charge notice from MET for parking at BP Stansted airport. I have not disclosed who the driver may be, or whether the driver is known to me. I have appealed to MET which has been declined as expected, and I have received a POPLA number.
From reading the various threads here my main point of contention for POPLA will be the PCN not meeting the PoFA 2012 requirement stated in paragraph 9(2)(f). Is my understanding correct based on the attached PCN? and should I submit my appeal to POPLA? or simply don't reply to MET and ignore all future correspondence because I am the keeper of the vehicle and no evidence has been produced regarding the driver.
--- PCN ---
drive.google.com/file/d/1amNQ1We48A0DvRVhWp9xPXNlEl-E_s6n/view?usp=sharing
drive.google.com/file/d/1D-iFUwlTwou72NjjC6rj3SJyZ6mdGMEa/view?usp=sharing
--- DRAFT POPLA APPEAL ---
I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated XX/11/2018 acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the Operator – MET Parking Services – was submitted and acknowledged by the Operator on XX/12/2018 and rejected via an email dated XX/12/2018. I contend that I, as the keeper, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:
1. NtK does not meet PoFA 2012 requirement stated in paragraph 9(2)(f).
2. No sufficient entrance signs and signs with terms and conditions in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces.
3. No evidence of landowner authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.
4. Vehicle Images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice –non-compliance
5. ANPR System is not reliable and inaccurate
1. NtK does not meet PoFA 2012 requirement stated in paragraph 9(2)(f).
Paragraph 9(2)(f) requires NtK to:
“warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given —
(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,
the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;“
On the NtK received, there is no statement covering the above conditions.
And Paragraph 4 states that:
“(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.
(2) The right under this paragraph applies only if—
(a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met;”
Failure to include the warning mentioned in paragraph 9 (2) (f) in the NtK issued by MET Parking Services and the fact that that MET Parking Services has not shown that the individual who they are pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge, means that MET Parking Services have no lawful authority to pursue any parking charge from myself, as a registered keeper appellant.
In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, no presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I have the right not to name that person.
As only an evidenced driver can be told to pay and there is provided no evidence regarding who was driving, the parking charge cannot pursued without a valid NTK from myself as a keeper.
The vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:
Understanding keeper liability
“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.
There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''
Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.
This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.”
...
Sections 2 - 5 omitted here as they are mostly copied from the following pdf and I would like feedback primarily on point #1
dropbox.com/s/p7ltb9rcr6zy7kn/Appeal_stage2_POPLA_ECP_draft5.pdf?dl=0
--- END OF APPEAL ---
From reading the various threads here my main point of contention for POPLA will be the PCN not meeting the PoFA 2012 requirement stated in paragraph 9(2)(f). Is my understanding correct based on the attached PCN? and should I submit my appeal to POPLA? or simply don't reply to MET and ignore all future correspondence because I am the keeper of the vehicle and no evidence has been produced regarding the driver.
--- PCN ---
drive.google.com/file/d/1amNQ1We48A0DvRVhWp9xPXNlEl-E_s6n/view?usp=sharing
drive.google.com/file/d/1D-iFUwlTwou72NjjC6rj3SJyZ6mdGMEa/view?usp=sharing
--- DRAFT POPLA APPEAL ---
I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated XX/11/2018 acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the Operator – MET Parking Services – was submitted and acknowledged by the Operator on XX/12/2018 and rejected via an email dated XX/12/2018. I contend that I, as the keeper, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:
1. NtK does not meet PoFA 2012 requirement stated in paragraph 9(2)(f).
2. No sufficient entrance signs and signs with terms and conditions in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces.
3. No evidence of landowner authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.
4. Vehicle Images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice –non-compliance
5. ANPR System is not reliable and inaccurate
1. NtK does not meet PoFA 2012 requirement stated in paragraph 9(2)(f).
Paragraph 9(2)(f) requires NtK to:
“warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given —
(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,
the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;“
On the NtK received, there is no statement covering the above conditions.
And Paragraph 4 states that:
“(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.
(2) The right under this paragraph applies only if—
(a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met;”
Failure to include the warning mentioned in paragraph 9 (2) (f) in the NtK issued by MET Parking Services and the fact that that MET Parking Services has not shown that the individual who they are pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge, means that MET Parking Services have no lawful authority to pursue any parking charge from myself, as a registered keeper appellant.
In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, no presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I have the right not to name that person.
As only an evidenced driver can be told to pay and there is provided no evidence regarding who was driving, the parking charge cannot pursued without a valid NTK from myself as a keeper.
The vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:
Understanding keeper liability
“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.
There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''
Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.
This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.”
...
Sections 2 - 5 omitted here as they are mostly copied from the following pdf and I would like feedback primarily on point #1
dropbox.com/s/p7ltb9rcr6zy7kn/Appeal_stage2_POPLA_ECP_draft5.pdf?dl=0
--- END OF APPEAL ---
0
Comments
-
I have submitted my appeal on-line to POPLA today, by creating a single Word document with my full appeal letter and supporting photos included. I then exported it on my laptop as a PDF file.
On POPLAs website I chose the "Start new appeal" then "Other" option so that I could upload the PDF as one attachment (supporting evidence).0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.4K Spending & Discounts
- 247.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.4K Life & Family
- 261.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards