POPLA Comments Stage - Double Dipping case - Care Parking

michellearmstrong20

KeithP wrote: »

I can see those Dropbox files, although I'm not sure of the relevance of the interior shot of what looks like an antiques shop.


Also, have you based your forum username on your real name?

Then your really should ask MSE to change your username to something totally anonymous.

To help with that, you might like to read this short extract from The MSE Forum Guide - Frequently Asked Questions & Rules:

Haha me neither, no idea how I put that pic up! Thanks KeithP

Redx

search their evidence pack for any issues and raise them in your concise draft (less than 2000 characters)


like this example from last year


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=74254622&postcount=42


concentrate on landowner contract , signage , NTK errors, POFA2012 errors etc

michellearmstrong20

Redx wrote: »

search their evidence pack for any issues and raise them in your concise draft (less than 2000 characters)


like this example from last year


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=74254622&postcount=42


concentrate on landowner contract , signage , NTK errors, POFA2012 errors etc

Thanks Redx, struggling to find fault with the Ntk...where it says the creditor should be stated do they have to use the word creditor on the ntk? The ntk link is below

Thanks for any advice

Front page:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/yyklauc02ynkcso/Photo%2003-01-2019%2C%2015%2036%2041.jpg?dl=0

Back page:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/r2e6wns5zzzbyeu/Photo%2003-01-2019%2C%2015%2046%2001.png?dl=0

Fruitcake

Delete the front page, redact your VRN properly so it can't be read at all, then repost it!
Do the same with the same image in your initial post!

The wording does not appear to be PoFA complaint to me. Hopefully the more experienced regulars can help with this.

You need to compare their wording line by line with the actual wording of the relevant parts of Schedule 4 then tell PoPLA how it fails (if this is the case) to meet the strict requirements.

Hint, where does the POFA mention 29 days?

You need to redact your PoPLA case number from all documents as well!

Fruitcake

In addition to the above, your VRN appears on a number of those images. ANPR printouts and sometimes in the text of other pages.

You need to go through your images with a fine tooth comb.

Fruitcake

Now for the gritty nitty rebuttal.

Landowner Authority.

The landowner's name (The Customer) has been redacted. It could be with anyone. There is no proof it applies to this car park or landowner.

The License agreement says it runs for 36 months from the date below but does not include a start date.
The scammers state earlier that their contract with the landowner started in November 2013.

The licence agreement says it auto renews unless cancelled by the Customer. There is no evidence of a renewal so it must be assumed the customer has cancelled the contract otherwise the scammers would have shown it.
Proof required that the contract is still in force.

There is no signature on the License agreement.


ANPR inaccuracy.

ANPR is known to be inaccurate and the head of the BPA admitted this on national TV. Even if it is only 1% inaccurate, at 5000 cars per day that would mean a failure to read 50 number plates per day. The actual failure rate of ANPR is known to be much higher, which is why the UK Government has banned their use in council car parks.
The scammers have failed to show what checks they do where ANPR accuracy is disputed, so it must be assumed there are none.

Advertising Consent.

The scammers have challenged the assertion that there is no planning permission for the ANPR camera/poles and said it was pre-existing. This may or may not be true.

They have not disputed that there is no Advertising Consent in place for their signs. This means they have admitted by omission that it does not exist, otherwise they would have challenged this point.
Not having this consent is a Criminal offence.

Challenge the PoFA wording anyway.

michellearmstrong20

Fruitcake wrote: »

Now for the gritty nitty rebuttal.

Landowner Authority.

The landowner's name (The Customer) has been redacted. It could be with anyone. There is no proof it applies to this car park or landowner.

The License agreement says it runs for 36 months from the date below but does not include a start date.
The scammers state earlier that their contract with the landowner started in November 2013.

The licence agreement says it auto renews unless cancelled by the Customer. There is no evidence of a renewal so it must be assumed the customer has cancelled the contract otherwise the scammers would have shown it.
Proof required that the contract is still in force.

There is no signature on the License agreement.


ANPR inaccuracy.

ANPR is known to be inaccurate and the head of the BPA admitted this on national TV. Even if it is only 1% inaccurate, at 5000 cars per day that would mean a failure to read 50 number plates per day. The actual failure rate of ANPR is known to be much higher, which is why the UK Government has banned their use in council car parks.
The scammers have failed to show what checks they do where ANPR accuracy is disputed, so it must be assumed there are nine.

Advertising Consent.

The scammers have challenged the assertion that there is no planning permission for the ANPR camera/poles and said it was pre-existing. This may or may not be true.

They have not disputed that there is no Advertising Consent in place for their signs. This means they have admitted by omission that it does not exist, otherwise they would have challenged this point.
Not having this consent is a Criminal offence.

Challenge the PoFA wording anyway.

Thank you so much for your advice Fruitcake, my comments are due in today so I best get cracking! You’ve been super helpful thank you!

Fruitcake

I need to proof read my own writtings betterer. Of course I meant none, not nine.

michellearmstrong20

It is within the original link now but this is the link to the last page of the contract only

https://www.dropbox.com/s/mdm7y9lo2czbqvy/Photo%2003-01-2019%2C%2017%2042%2020.png?dl=0

Thanks for all your help x

Fruitcake

Customer name redacted.

Position in unknown alleged customer`s company not given.

Position in scammers company not given.

Name and signature of the alleged authorised representative of the unknown company redacted.

Name and signature of scammer`s alleged representative redacted.

Date of original contract is 2013.

No proof that the contract was ever renewed. No proof that contact exists with current landowner.

Why would anyone hide the above information? The BPA requires a contract to be in place. None of the above contract proves there is such a thing, so the assumption must be that there is not a current contract in place with the current landowner.

Can you do a quick internet search to find out who the owner is? Often a retail park will have a website giving at least the name of the company/holding company.
It may just be possible that the current landowner company name is longer than the redacted name on the above alleged contract if you see what I mean. If that is the case then the contract shown cannot possibly be with the current landowner.

I am of course assuming that you have not redacted any of the information on the alleged contract, and therefore the scammers are trying to hide something.


eta

The landowner's agent appears to be or have been a company called GVA, but I can't find the landowner details as yet.