UKPC, Popla how short an appeal?

Coupon-mad

Can i add links?

To POPLA comments? No, as that's adding new evidence not already in the appeal.

They believe the ANPR is reliable with regular checks but a quick google finds several recent issues where people double dipped minutes or hours apart and got tickets. How to mention these in few words?

Other cases are irrelevant to yours, and would not try to show POPLA anything like that.

I'd be reminding POPLA of this:

- Carpark was extremely busy at the time (lunchtime).
- Driver drove in and out 4 times in total, the keeper received 4 identical letters.
- We assume its clocked each entrance / exit (ANPR) yet they only provided the same photo in each letter and only one parking charge.
- Driver was disabled so more time should have been allowed.

No idea what to look for on the landowner contract?

Is the 'date signed' shown?
Is the expiry date shown, is it possibly expired or not clear it runs into perpetuity?
Are the signatories identified?
Are the signatories from the landowner firm?

Now look at their signage evidence. Blurry, unreadable? Old dates on the photos?

Say so.

forgotmyname

Thanks. Yes on the signage. Some pictures are from 2015 not 2018, major differences, the store had a refit and possible extended so some signs are now a clean bare wall.

Photo's from around the carpark are totally unreadable.

No end date on contract, did not see any mention of perpetuity, will check again.


Query on the "COPY" stamped original PCN they have supplied. If its a copy why is the address in a different format with the barcodes next to the address missing?

In their evidence...
"COPY" 1 entry photo is colour but exit is B&W (page has colour on it elsewhere like the UKPC logo)

"COPY" 2 further down, both photo's are B&W (page has colour on the logo and timestamp etc)

Relevent or normal?

Thanks for putting up with me



PS.. one more thing. Driver status in red shows as the registered keeper.

Coupon-mad

on the signage. Some pictures are from 2015 not 2018, major differences, the store had a refit and possible extended so some signs are now a clean bare wall.

Photo's from around the carpark are totally unreadable.

No end date on contract, did not see any mention of perpetuity...

Query on the "COPY" stamped original PCN they have supplied. If its a copy why is the address in a different format with the barcodes next to the address missing?

In their evidence...
"COPY" 1 entry photo is colour but exit is B&W (page has colour on it elsewhere like the UKPC logo)

"COPY" 2 further down, both photo's are B&W (page has colour on the logo and timestamp etc)

All relevant IMHO. And your comments should be in bullet points like that.

Driver status in red shows as the registered keeper.

Did the PCN that arrived in the post have the POFA wording about ''if after 28 (or 29) days...{snip} we will have the right to recover from you (or the keeper)...''?

Or is it one of their weird ones that gives that as ''If after 42 days...''?

forgotmyname

Its 42 days.

"If you fail either to notify us of the driver's details, or to pay UKPC ( the creditor) the full amount requested in this Parking Charge within 42 days of the date of this Parking Charge, we may have the legal right to recover the full amount of this Parking Charge from the registered keeper."


This is where i fall down, not knowing how or why that is relevant.

Thanks.

Coupon-mad

Hahaha I am so happy to read that - and glad I asked!

You can compare that deadline to the POFA and see where 42 days comes into it (clue: it doesn't). I hope you never implied who was driving.

This will obviously be your first POPLA comment bullet point.

forgotmyname

Aha.. Googled it... Found an old thread from 03/2018

Not POFA wording? So the keeper is not liable?


Vehicle is insured for several family members if they push that direction, one of who was the actual driver on the day in question. But we have driven the car using our own 3rd party cover previously. Its an older/cheap car.

Thanks

forgotmyname

Almost 1300 characters so far....



POFA wording not compliant. The registered keeper is not liable. UKPC have declared the keeper to be the driver on the evidence pack. I have repeated several times in all appeals that the registered keeper was NOT the driver on the date in question.


The car park was extremely busy with it being lunchtime, there were no spaces available and the driver left the site and returned, three times before they finally found a parking space.

Vehicle was not on the premises the entire 90 minutes claimed.

Driver was disabled and should be allowed a reasonable length of time.

Signage evidence provided is out of date, some photo’s are from 2016 or older, the building has been extended and signs on the walls are no longer there.

Sign visible to the right of the entrance is also dated before 2016, the new sign is facing into the car park and only visible if you park in the last few bays or as you exit the car park which is too late to disagree with any terms and conditions.

Photographs of the signs taken in the car park by UKPC are unreadable.

Copies of the NTK supplied in the evidence pack are not true copies of the NTK letter that I received. One copy shows the vehicle in B&W and one shows the entry in colour. Address details are in a different format and the QR codes are missing.



Right track so far? Thanks

Coupon-mad

POFA wording not compliant.

You need to point out they've got a random paragraph about '42 days' instead of the statutory wording.

forgotmyname

Thanks, although I wont be holding my breath on this one with POPLA's lies about being within 21 days when it was over double that.

They claimed my April appeal was actually in May. Err no it was 10001% early April...



Next will be can I complain about POPLA with this incorrect info?

forgotmyname

Appeal Unsuccessful................ What a surprise (NOT)

Incompetent beyond a joke.

Appears to be they only skim read the the response to their evidence and totally failed to check with the main appeal.


EDIT:
Puzzled: Why does the rejection waffle on about the Beavis case and the charge not being a penalty? I have never mentioned the Beavis case or the fact whether the charge was a penalty or not...


EDIT2. Huge paragraph on the Beavis case but not a single comment on the photo's being out of date and the building having had major work where signs had been removed.