Parkingeye Lido Margate POPLA appeal

Castle

Modyfi wrote: »

Does that make a difference to my argument? Do I need to word anything differently?

Lido (1) is the land they are claiming on the ntk

The ownership of Lido 1 is still in dispute, (as the administrators of Stour Side Developments are claiming legal title to it in their Feb 2019 report). Lido 2 is not owned by Stour Side Investments so the letter of authority signed in 2016 is invalid.

Modyfi

So I assume then if the land itself is still in dispute, there is no chance P.E. have or will be able to obtain a LOA?

I have updated with all points made. It definitely is an easier read compared to what I had written!


Not that its needed but will post revised below. There is now 130 characters spare if any use can be thought of.

P.E.'s Evidence pack claims:
1) Insufficient time purchased
2) They have written authority to operate at Lido 1
3) Signs are clear & car headlights would illuminate signs

Response
1) Print out only states time of the vehicle. It does not show the amount. As stated the correct amount was paid yet P.E. did not provide proof that the machine was not 30p up after that period.

2) P.E state “Please note that the Letter of Authority provided to demonstrate P.E’s authority to operate at this site is effective from 02/06/2016 as the date the Letter of Authority was signed”.

Letter of Authority is dated 02/06/16 so is 3 years old. No expiry date. Signature is completely redacted. Text below signature states it is that of Paul Eley. Paul Eley resigned his directorship on 14th June '17. I conclude P.E. do not have authority to operate at this car park.

3) Signage is illegible at night as shown previous. The SIgn Layout plan shows two on a lighting post which is false. This is proven with P.E own image (image 4) which shows the two signs with no lighting equipment fitted. P.E evidence shows daytime signage.

The Signs are not within proximity to the vehicle and there are no distances on the plan. Lights on vehicle could not reach as stated. Mot standard for headlight adjustment is between 0.5% and 2.75% drop so with all signs above car height, headlight beam will not reach.

4) Lastly is an issue not raised by P.E but enforces previous appeals argument.
The Notice to keeper must:
specify the relevant land on which it was parked which the notice relates;

P.E. HAVE NOT addressed my appeal point that NTK must specify the relevant land to which the notice relates. In fact their signage evidence (image 3) shows ticket machine for another car park - 'Lido 2'. If P.E show incorrect evidence, how can they state which land is correct and be sure it follows BPA standard.

MistyZ

I think you've got there too.

Nit-picking: 'signage is unlit & illegible at night as shown in my appeal'? Anything else you can add about signage?

Could use up some spare words by referencing source of info. re. P. Eley's resignation? (They don't accept links).

Good luck! Please let us all know the outcome.

Coupon-mad

Castle's words need to be used.

Also wouldn't this be better to just say:

1) Print out only states time of the vehicle. It does not show the amount paid. As stated the correct amount was paid yet P.E. did not provide proof from the machine of the amount paid. [STRIKE]that the machine was not 30p up after that period.[/STRIKE]

Modyfi

Adjusted the section on payment as you have worded.

Also added castle's post to loa section which now reads

Letter of Authority is dated 02/06/16 so is 3 years old. No expiry date. Signature is completely redacted. Text below signature states it is that of Paul Eley. Paul Eley resigned his directorship on 14th June '17. I conclude P.E. do not have authority to operate at this car park. The ownership of Lido 1 is still in dispute (as the administrators of Stour Side Developments are claiming legal title to it in their Feb 2019 report). Lido 2 is not owned by Stour Side Investments so the letter of authority signed in 2016 is invalid.

Any other suggestions?

Today is the last day so wil upload tonight.

Modyfi

Thank you to everyone for all the help and advice. My appeal has been successful!

Umkomaas

Modyfi wrote: »

Thank you to everyone for all the help and advice. My appeal has been successful!

Well done. :T

Can we see the POPLA assessor's response please? It will really help, if the response is lengthy, if you could put some paragraphs into the wall of text that POPLA spew out (highly unprofessional, lack of any consideration in respect of formatting and readability).

Modyfi

Decision
Successful

Assessor Name
Paul E Walker

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator states that the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site either without appropriate payment or for longer than permitted. It has issued a parking charge notice (PCN) for £100 as a result.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states that the required payment was made in full. He states that the ‘notice to keeper’ issued by the operator is not complaint with the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012. He states that the operator has no proprietary interest in the land and no right to enter into contracts with users of the site. He states that signage on site is not compliant with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice and was not prominent enough to enable a valid contact to be formed between the operator and driver. The appellant has provided a witness statement from himself.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant is acting for the registered keeper of the vehicle. The driver of the vehicle on the date in question has not been clearly identified. The operator is therefore pursuing the registered keeper for the charge in line with POFA.

POFA allows a parking operator to transfer liability from the unidentified driver of a vehicle to the registered keeper of that vehicle, providing various conditions are met. One of those conditions is that the operator must issue a ‘notice to keeper’ and that said notice must “specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates”.

The operator has provided a copy of the ‘notice to keeper’ issued. I am satisfied that the vehicle details and parking period were specified as required by POFA, however I am not satisfied that the relevant land was. The notice refers to the land only as “Lido (1)” with no reference to the specific address or even the general location of the site.

It is not possible to determine from the information on the notice which of the hundreds of lidos no doubt situated around the country that the vehicle was alleged to have parked on.

I am not satisfied from the evidence that the operator’s ‘notice to keeper’ was complaint with POFA in that it did not specify the relevant land on which the vehicle was parked.

I am not therefore satisfied that the operator is within its rights to transfer liability for the charge from the unidentified driver to the register keeper of the vehicle. I am not satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly and I must allow this appeal.

Le_Kirk

Nice one! Well done!

Umkomaas

It is not possible to determine from the information on the notice which of the hundreds of lidos no doubt situated around the country that the vehicle was alleged to have parked on.

Cracker!

An assessor seemingly with a bit of a twinkle in his eye.