Reply To POPLA CEL

Ammaa

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that they are the keeper of the vehicle, the appellant has advised that the operator has not complied with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 and cannot hold them liable. The appellant has advised that the operator has not complied wit the strict time restriction of PoFA The appellant has provided a copy of a letter received in support of their appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that, the appellant has been identified as the driver of the vehicle at the time of the relevant parking event.


The operator is therefore pursuing the appellant as the registered keeper of the vehicle in this instance. For the operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle, to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 must be adhered to.

The operator has provided a copy of the notice to keeper; after reviewing this I am satisfied that; the operator has met with the requirements of PoFA 2012. The terms and conditions of the site are, “90 minutes maximum parking. All drivers wishing to stay longer must register for a parking permit inside the gym. If you breach any of these terms you will be charged £100”.

The site operates by an Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system. The appellant’s vehicle registration number, XXXXXX was captured entering the site at 09:30, before exiting at 11:49, totalling a stay of two hours 19 minutes. The operator issued a PCN due to maximum 90 minutes free parking. Within Section 18.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice it states that “A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so under a licence or contract with you. If they park without your permission this will usually be an act of trespass.

In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are”. Furthermore, Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states, “You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”.

I consider the photographic evidence to show that the operator met the minimum standards set by the BPA. The operator has provided a system generated report from this I can see the appellant’s vehicle was not registered for parking in excess of the maximum stay allowed. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that when they enter a car park, they have understood the terms and conditions of parking. By remaining parked on site, the appellant accepted the terms and conditions.

On this occasion, by remaining in excess of the maximum permitted stay and not registering for additional parking, the motorist has failed to follow the terms and conditions of the signage at the site and as such, I conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly.

Ammaa

Hello,

I have spaced it out with paragraphs as requested. I hope it’s ok.
Thank you..

nosferatu1001

We never saw the NtK. but I presume your comment on the "14 days" was correct? And it was in your original appeal, whcih we also did not see?

If so, then the Assessor has cocked up

COMPLAIN to POPLA that they have stated a docuenmtn served after 14 days was a valid notice to keeper.

Ammaa

They uploaded the letter that was to the keeper on the POPLA website, but I never received it. It was the subsequent warning letter that I received

nosferatu1001

OK
DIdnt answer the question I asked: did you raise it in your appeal? Not the rebuttal, the APPEAL
If so, then you have to complain.
If it was not served - because you have attested it was not - then it cannot meet the requiremetns to hold a keeper liable.

Coupon-mad

You won't be able to prove a negative (that the NTK was never served).

Get ready to defend this at a small claims hearing instead.

Ammaa

Yes, it was written in the note. I copied and pasted it for critique before sending it off.

Ammaa

Small claims court? Would you advise I continue to pursue. I am happy to, however do I stand a chance? What would I need to prepare for it.

Ammaa

Please, which way is best forward. I have not gotten a reply. Thank you.

KeithP

You need to be reading the NEWBIES thread again.

Post #4 on that thread will tell you how to deal with debt collectors letters and post #2 on that thread will tell you how to deal with a Letter of Claim or official court correspondence should that arrive.