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
HighView
idontknowwhatiamdoin
Posts: 5 Forumite
Hi I read everything I could on the forums and did the appeal including this copy and paste from the post I found on here:
"Further Information I am appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party. The PCN makes no attempt to pass liability to the keeper after 28 days. 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 am exercising my right not to name that person. As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. 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.''
Today I received this from highview :
"Dear Madam,
Thank you for your correspondence relating to your Parking Charge Notice (PCN).
The representations stated in your correspondence have been noted and considered. Please forward to us the full name and address of the driver at the time this charge was incurred so that we can update our records accordingly.
We are placing this Notice on hold for 14 days from the date of this email to allow you to provide the details requested.
Yours faithfully,
Highview Parking Limited"
Did I do something wrong? whats my next step please, thank you
"Further Information I am appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party. The PCN makes no attempt to pass liability to the keeper after 28 days. 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 am exercising my right not to name that person. As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. 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.''
Today I received this from highview :
"Dear Madam,
Thank you for your correspondence relating to your Parking Charge Notice (PCN).
The representations stated in your correspondence have been noted and considered. Please forward to us the full name and address of the driver at the time this charge was incurred so that we can update our records accordingly.
We are placing this Notice on hold for 14 days from the date of this email to allow you to provide the details requested.
Yours faithfully,
Highview Parking Limited"
Did I do something wrong? whats my next step please, thank you
0
Comments
-
Don't know why you added that stuff to the template appeal, but it will have done no harm.
Ignore the latest letter and wait patiently for your appeal rejection and PoPLA code.0 -
because that's what it said to do on highview skedaddle thread or did I misunderstand?0
-
After reading the "highview lied on popla" thread and checking my correspondence I can see they are doing the same thing to me. I did not tick check that I was the driver and the original auto-email I got at time of submission does not include "was drive - yes" but their email response, where they are asking me to provide the details of the driver, does include this extra heading which states "was driver - yes"
Surely this is completely illgal? and why are they sending emails asking me for the driver details if i have supposedly already admitted to be the driver?0 -
Did you take a screenshot before submitting your appeal?Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.#Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street0 -
No, I only have the auto-email they sent which doesn't include the heading at all... conveniently!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
- 604K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.4K Life & Family
- 261.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards