Fine for entering wrong vehicle reg

Redx

I do not do the work for people, I may review their efforts and offer critique

I always tell people to look at previous examples for inspiration, so check previous rebuttals I have commented on, or other regulars have commented on

You won't mess up if you post the proposed draft on here first

Umkomaas

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

Stable doors etc., but that's one reason why I pay everything by card. (I was nearly caught out the other day when getting proof of posting at a PO and only had just enough cash to pay for a first class stamp).

I presume you mean the free Certificate of Posting to which you are entitled to when using first class stamped mail? Or did you use your card to pay for 'Signed For' (previously Recorded/Registered mail)?

familyguy321

Understood. To clarify, I was only asking for your help, not to do the work. Could you point me in the right direction to a good example specifically about landowner authority.

I'll look to redraft my rebuttal this evening after work.

familyguy321

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

Apologies if this is irrelevant (I seem to have strayed onto the Parking Board by mistake...)


I assume the RK paid by cash rather than by card? Otherwise your bank would have a record of the payment and I would have thought would be able to tell you who the payee was? (My bank has certainly helped me in that respect in the past).


Stable doors etc., but that's one reason why I pay everything by card. (I was nearly caught out the other day when getting proof of posting at a PO and only had just enough cash to pay for a first class stamp).


As I say, apologies as I'm sure this must already have been covered (?).

Thank you for the thought, but payment was made in cash.

Quentin

Umkomaas wrote: »

I presume you mean the free Certificate of Posting to which you are entitled to when using first class stamped mail? Or did you use your card to pay for 'Signed For' (previously Recorded/Registered mail)?

A cert of posting only proves an item was posted, but not which service was used. They are issued for first and second class items.

MistyZ

How about something like:

'In point 3 of their case summary PDF, OPS claim:
'The Client is authorised to manage the Site by way of an operating contact between them and the landowners (Evidenced).' But no such evidence is provided. I therefore conclude that OPS do not have authority to operate at this site.'

Manxman_in_exile

Umkomaas wrote: »

I presume you mean the free Certificate of Posting to which you are entitled to when using first class stamped mail? Or did you use your card to pay for 'Signed For' (previously Recorded/Registered mail)?

Free certificate of posting, but I had to buy a stamp. They seemed reluctant to accept card payment for a stamp. (Whether they should have done or not, I don't know. I spent a few minutes emptying my pockets and eventually found enough spare change. If I'd taken any longer they may just have taken the card.)


If many of these machines are unreliable, is it worth recording the attempted transaction on a 'phone?

familyguy321

Thanks to everyone for your feedback and advice. I have re-drafted my rebuttal below taking out the stuff about grace periods and NtK non-compliance.

Just to keep things in one place, I will first provide links to my original appeal and the response by OPS (there were a lot of files attached but this pdf seems to be the main document):

Original POPLA appeal: https://www.docdroid.net/O0uOX8h/popla-appeal-redacted.pdf
OPS response: https://pdfhost.io/v/n1QLwi7dx_111258612_CSRpdf.pdf

Please let me know if any amendments are required (I will shorten it to 2000 characters before submission):

In response to the claim by OPS that no evidence of payment has been provided, I have made attempts to request a redacted copy of the records from the parking payment machines via a Subject Access Request and then directly to OPS. Unfortunately, OPS have not been forthcoming with this information and have so far only provided a screenshot of a search against my exact registration. I infer that OPS have the information I’ve requested but do not want to share as it would clearly show a payment of £1.30 was made that is not matched to a vehicle recorded as present – which would be my vehicle.

OPS claims that the signage has been audited and approved by the BPA, but have not provided evidence of this. I will reiterate point 2 of my initial appeal that clearly explains why the signage placed throughout the site fail to comply with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) in several areas.

Furthermore, In reference to OPS’ claim that there is signage at the site regarding ANPR that complies with the ICO’s CoP, I would put to OPS to provide the location of said sign as it is clearly not anywhere near the entrance signs or the payment machine. Furthermore, this sign does not state anywhere that the personal data collected will be shared to a third party, in this case ZZPS, who subsequently used the personal data to make a “DVLA referral” on 26/03/2019 for the registered keepers address. This a serious failure to comply with the BPA CoP and Consumer law.

Lastly, in point 3 of their case summary PDF, OPS claim: 'The Client is authorised to manage the Site by way of an operating contact* between them and the landowners (Evidenced).' But no such evidence is provided. I therefore conclude that OPS do not have authority to operate at this site.

In light of my comments above, I request that the POPLA assessor uphold my appeal and inform OPS to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.

* Just noticed this says contact instead of contract. Not sure if this is a typo or something that can be used against OPS.

MistyZ

I make that 1,890 characters so you're doing okay. I never trust my laptop's tools though!

I very much doubt that the typo can be used against OPS, sadly.

Redx

Leave the typo in, it is context that is important and you are claiming that this evidenced contract is missing from the evidence pack they supplied