POPLA reply Gemini Solutions

Coupon-mad

http://i.imgur.com/Cg421Ki.jpg

They have also missed the part about the driver, that says 'and pass the notice to them'.

neverpaying

Coupon-mad wrote: »

They have also missed the part about the driver, that says 'and pass the notice to them'.

But how should I mention that in the rebuttal or mention the POFA at all? Just repeat myself?

This is all I have so far (way too long at 1500/2000 chars):

In all of the images of the Vehicle, there is no indicator of the proximity of nearby signage to the vehicle. None of the evidence provided that shows the geography of the affected area (both the aerial view and the photographs of the signage) have any indication of what date and time the images were taken. There is no proof that shows that the roadside signage in the evidence (other than the entrance sign which I have provided myself) was available on the date of contravention and thus cannot be considered as evidence at all. The entrance sign marked on the site map document does not clearly show the situation that I have described in the previous stage of the sign being illegible from the angle of traffic entering the parking area. The signage at the entrance shown in their evidence only further proves this point as the glare from the sun renders the vast majority of the sign unreadable let alone the smaller text of the terms and condition and hours of operation. Additionally, from that same document, it can be seen how the font colour of the entrance sign makes it even more difficult to make out especially from a moving Vehicle on entry. In the second site images evidence document, an image taken approximately 1 metre away from the entrance sign remains unreadable. This all fails to meet the BPA Code of Practice of “The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead”. Finally, all of the provided photographic evidence are of poor quality.

Coupon-mad

You need to remove the sentences and change to bullet points.

You will lose LOADS of words once you stop writing full sentences.

But how should I mention that in the rebuttal or mention the POFA at all?

You quote the POFA (briefly).

You also need to add that POPLA has lost your appeal PDF and you have complained (I hope you have ranted already and demanded they find it)? You KNOW the Assessor won't be able to see your appeal from what you read from the parking firm, so you need to mention it here and separately complain.

neverpaying

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You need to remove the sentences and change to bullet points.

You will lose LOADS of words once you stop writing full sentences.


You quote the POFA (briefly).

You also need to add that POPLA has lost your appeal PDF and you have complained (I hope you have ranted already and demanded they find it)? You KNOW the Assessor won't be able to see your appeal from what you read from the parking firm, so you need to mention it here and separately complain.

POPLA has allowed me to send them the PDF so that's why I haven't ranted at them, do you think I still should?

OK bullet points are fine. But still confused about including POFA, it is repeating myself a bit right?

Coupon-mad

POPLA are talking rubbish IMHO.

If the PDF was not visible to the PPC, then POPLA can't consider the words of that appeal AT ALL, unless they provide it to the PPC now and give them a chance to respond.

Never heard of them doing that. I've been doing POPLA appeals since it started in late 2012/early 2013.

I think you were fobbed off and would phone them again to talk through exactly how they are going to resolve this, and how long it will take.

Your case is on a slippery slope, as there is no PDF and unless POPLA are going to do something unusual (and will PROMISE that to you by email, not just on the phone - and get their name) then the Assessor will never see your appeal and you will lose, IMHO.

Then you'd complain, only to be told 'tough, POPLA is an evidence-based service'.

neverpaying

Coupon-mad wrote: »

POPLA are talking rubbish IMHO.

If the PDF was not visible to the PPC, then POPLA can't consider the words of that appeal AT ALL, unless they provide it to the PPC now and give them a chance to respond.

Never heard of them doing that. I've been doing POPLA appeals since it started in late 2012/early 2013.

I think you were fobbed off and would phone them again to talk through exactly how they are going to resolve this, and how long it will take.

Your case is on a slippery slope, as there is no PDF and unless POPLA are going to do something unusual (and will PROMISE that to you by email, not just on the phone - and get their name) then the Assessor will never see your appeal and you will lose, IMHO.

Then you'd complain, only to be told 'tough, POPLA is an evidence-based service'.

It was an email:

Thank you for your correspondence.

I have reviewed the appeal and I cannot locate any PDF that has been uploaded I'm afraid, currently there is no context to your appeal. Please respond with the PDF that should have uploaded along with any comments regarding the evidence provided by the operator.

Kind regards
POPLA Team

I'll refer to the email in the rebuttal too just to confirm the PDF is considered

Coupon-mad

It's not a rebuttal. It's comments on the evidence (use POPLA's terminology).

I would actually reply to that email when attaching your PDF and adding final comments. Keep them short, but you won't be restricted to 2000 characters when commenting by email.

You need to cite the POFA omissions.

neverpaying

Coupon-mad wrote: »

It's not a rebuttal. It's comments on the evidence (use POPLA's terminology).

I would actually reply to that email when attaching your PDF and adding final comments. Keep them short, but you won't be restricted to 2000 characters when commenting by email.

You need to cite the POFA omissions.

Sorry if I'm being really dense here but in my comments on the evidence, how do I bring up the POFA again. The POFA omissions stuff is in my appeal PDF, do I just copy paste?

- "Gemini Parking Solutions has failed to comply in the wording of their Notice to Keeper when they stated that the driver became liable for a parking charge at ‘GLL Mile End’. I quote Paragraph 1(1)(a) of the POFA: “the driver of a vehicle is required by virtue of a relevant obligation to pay parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on relevant land;”."

"Additionally, their wording in the Notice to Keeper was not compliant with the Paragraph 9(2)(f) of the Act, namely “if after 29 days” as opposed to the specified text in the Act of “warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given”, where the date that the 29 days starts from has not been sufficiently specified. By definition therefore, the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 cannot now be relied upon to establish any liability on the part of the Registered Keeper under Paragraph 8(1) thereof."


OR should I summarise and say:

• They have failed to comply with Paragraph 9 (2)(f) of the POFA in their wording of "if after 29 days"
• They have failed to comply with Paragraph 9 (2)(e)(ii) of the POFA, which says: "if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;"
• Gemini Parking Solutions has failed to comply in the wording of their evidence when they stated that the driver became liable for a parking charge at ‘xxx’. I quote Paragraph 1(1)(a) of the POFA: “the driver of a vehicle is required by virtue of a relevant obligation to pay parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on relevant land;”.

What else can I pin them on in POFA?

edit: It's paragraph 9 for everything isn't it because it was just a NtK and not a ticket in the windshield

Coupon-mad

OR should I summarise and say:

They have failed to comply with Paragraph 9 (2)(f) of the POFA in their wording of "if after 29 days". And they have failed to comply with Paragraph 9 (2)(e)(ii) of the POFA, which says: "if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;"

Yes, and yes:

It's paragraph 9 for everything isn't it because it was just a NtK and not a ticket in the windshield

neverpaying

These are my comments on the evidence so far then:



- They have failed to comply with Paragraph 9 (2)(f) of the POFA in their wording of "if after 29 days".
- They have failed to comply with Paragraph 9 (2)(e)(ii) of the POFA, which says: "if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;"
- Gemini Parking Solutions has failed to comply in the wording of their Notice to Keeper when they stated that the driver became liable for a parking charge at ‘GLL Mile End’. I quote Paragraph 1(1)(a) of the POFA: “the driver of a vehicle is required by virtue of a relevant obligation to pay parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on relevant land;”.
- In all of the images of the Vehicle, there is no indicator of the proximity of nearby signage to the vehicle.
- None of the evidence provided that shows the geography of the affected area have any indication of what date and time the images were taken. There is no proof that shows that the roadside signage in the evidence was available on the date of contravention and thus cannot be considered as evidence at all.
- The entrance sign marked on the site map document does not clearly show the situation that I have described in the previous stage of the sign being illegible from the angle of traffic entering the parking area.
- The signage at the entrance shown in their evidence only further proves this point as the glare from the sun renders the vast majority of the sign unreadable let alone the smaller text of the terms and condition and hours of operation.
- Additionally, from that same document, it can be seen how the font colour of the entrance sign makes it even more difficult to make out especially from a moving Vehicle on entry.
- From their evidence, an image taken approximately 1 metre away from the entrance sign remains unreadable.
- This all fails to meet the BPA Code of Practice of “The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead”.
- All of the provided photographic evidence are of poor quality.

One other thing. They've given me a witness statement signed in Feb 2019, but the landowner contract is dated 2016 and lasts 3 years, but doesn't explicitly show that it was active on the date of contravention. Is that something I should target?