Genuine mistake

LarryR

Well, I've had the automated response to my appeal, now, I assume, I just need to wait for the rejection? (it says it could take up to 28 days?!?)

So should I copy and paste *all* the blue text POPLA appeal which relates to non-POFA compliance as well as invalid dates? Or stick with the non-POFA compliance wording of the PCN only?

Coupon-mad

There is no 'blue text POPLA appeal'.

You would be telling POPLA about the wording AND the dates in the POPLA point about no keeper liability. In words of one syllable, like you would to a child, setting out the dates and quoting para 9 of the POFA in terms of the bit about the 'relevant period' and the mandatory keeper liability warning set out in 9(2)f, which is missing on the PCN.

Other POPLA appeal paragraphs exist too!

See post #3 of the NEWBIES thread. NEVER rely on a 'one trick pony' at POPLA.

LarryR

Hi, when I said 'blue text' I meant the templated text in the below post...

Here is a POPLA appeal you can copy & adapt, ONLY if you have a ParkingEye 'Golden Ticket':

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74575725#Comment_74575725

from the Batman3479 post, is that not the right one?

Le_Kirk

That is blue because the poster formatted it, the BLUE text appeal referred to generally means the initial "one size fits all" template in the NEWBIE section post # 1.

LarryR

Ah, sorry, that's my fault for not being clear. So is the appeal in blue from the post I linked to the one I should be using once I get the rejection/POPLA reference number back from PE?

Le_Kirk

That was a short POPLA appeal, it is always recommended on here to use all the points to be found in some of the examples to be found in the NEWBIE section post # 3 and to include lighting, signage and proof of ownership/authority.

Coupon-mad

LarryR wrote: »

Ah, sorry, that's my fault for not being clear. So is the appeal in blue from the post I linked to the one I should be using once I get the rejection/POPLA reference number back from PE?

No, I agree with Le_Kirk. There is more to include. See other POPLA threads that are more recent and you will see the usual points always used.

LarryR

Thanks Le_Kirk and Coupon-mad for your replies. Should my appeal really cite problems with signage and lighting if there weren't any? I have done a search for Barnet Hospital appeals and can't see any successful ones that include signage or lighting?

Should I add to the below "No evidence of Landowner Authority" template (https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=71287628&postcount=2343)

Will this be enough?

Again, thanks for your help.

L

ADDRESS
EMAIL
CAR LICENSE PLATE
DATE

Dear POPLA,

On the DATE, ParkingEye Ltd. issued a parking charge to myself (as keeper of the vehicle) highlighting that the above mentioned vehicle had been recorded via their automatic number plate recognition system for “remaining at the car park longer than the stay authorised”. There was no windscreen ticket on the vehicle - the notice to keeper was sent via post.

As the registered keeper I wish to refute these charges and have this PCN cancelled on the following grounds:
The Notice to Keeper does not comply with sub-paragraph 9 (2 & 5) and is not POFA compliant - ParkingEye’s own documentation (attached) shows that the event to which they refer occurred on DATE, but they did not issue the PCN until DATE, which, accounting for non-business days, means they did not notify me until after the 14-days required for keeper liability.

The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge

Please see below for details
1) This Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the dates and the wording used.

Under schedule 4, paragraph 4 of the POFA, an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle if certain conditions are met as stated in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 & 12. ParkingEye have failed to fulfil the conditions which state that the keeper must be served with a compliant NTK in accordance with paragraph 9, which stipulates a mandatory timeline and wording:-

’’The notice must be given by— (a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or(b) sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.’’

The applicable section here is (b) because the NTK was delivered by post. Furthermore, paragraph 9(5) states: ’’The relevant period...is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended’’

The NTK sent to myself as Registered Keeper arrived 15 days after the alleged event. - see the attached PDF from ParkingEye with the ‘event date’ of DATE and the issue date of DATE.


2)The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.
At no point have ParkingEye provided any proof as to the identity of the driver of the vehicle; nor have I provided them with the identity of the driver (nor do I intend to).

I have contested this with ParkingEye with regards to their PCN reference REFERENCE, but they have written to me (dated DATE) to say I have been unsuccessful and provided POPLA reference REFERENCE.

I sincerely hope you are able to help me.

Many thanks,

NAME

Coupon-mad

Should my appeal really cite problems with signage and lighting

Yes, because there always are issues with signs in a huge sprawling NHS site with loads of different areas & rules and lots of larger signs (not about parking), and if it was dark on arrival, then by stating to POPLA, that any signs and machines were in pitch black darkness, you are forcing P/Eye to have to cough up contemporaneous photos of the signs IN THE DARK.

They might not be able to jump through that hoop, they might supply daylight pics then you can swoop on that at 'evidence comments' stage, and win!

...if it was dark on arrival. Was it?

Also, your argument about the NTK is NOT JUST ABOUT THE DATE ON IT. You need to spell out to a dozy POPLA Assessor that this PCN was a non-POFA one (if it was) with no POFA section on the back.

It is your job to point that out as POPLA are not great at noticing, IMHO.

Guys_Dad

LarryR wrote: »

Thanks Le_Kirk and Coupon-mad for your replies. Should my appeal really cite problems with signage and lighting if there weren't any? I have done a search for Barnet Hospital appeals and can't see any successful ones that include signage or lighting?

Should I add to the below "No evidence of Landowner Authority" template (https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=71287628&postcount=2343)

Will this be enough?

Again, thanks for your help.

L

ADDRESS
EMAIL
CAR LICENSE PLATE
DATE

Dear POPLA,

On the DATE, ParkingEye Ltd. issued a parking charge to myself (as keeper of the vehicle) highlighting that the above mentioned vehicle had been recorded via their automatic number plate recognition system for “remaining at the car park longer than the stay authorised”. There was no windscreen ticket on the vehicle - the notice to keeper was sent via post.

As the registered keeper I wish to refute these charges and have this PCN cancelled on the following grounds:
The Notice to Keeper does not comply with sub-paragraph 9 (2 & 5) and is not POFA compliant - ParkingEye’s own documentation (attached) shows that the event to which they refer occurred on DATE, but they did not issue the PCN until DATE, which, accounting for non-business days, means they did not notify me until after the 14-days required for keeper liability.

The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge

Please see below for details
1) This Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the dates and the wording used.

Under schedule 4, paragraph 4 of the POFA, an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle if certain conditions are met as stated in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 & 12. ParkingEye have failed to fulfil the conditions which state that the keeper must be served with a compliant NTK in accordance with paragraph 9, which stipulates a mandatory timeline and wording:-

’’The notice must be given by— (a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or(b) sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.’’

The applicable section here is (b) because the NTK was delivered by post. Furthermore, paragraph 9(5) states: ’’The relevant period...is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended’’

The NTK sent to myself as Registered Keeper arrived 15 days after the alleged event. - see the attached PDF from ParkingEye with the ‘event date’ of DATE and the issue date of DATE.


2)The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.
At no point have ParkingEye provided any proof as to the identity of the driver of the vehicle; nor have I provided them with the identity of the driver (nor do I intend to).

I have contested this with ParkingEye with regards to their PCN reference REFERENCE, but they have written to me (dated DATE) to say I have been unsuccessful and provided POPLA reference REFERENCE.

I sincerely hope you are able to help me.

Many thanks,

NAME

That will lose.

You need to spell out that the contravention was on Sarurday 14.4.19. The NTK was dated Thursday 25.4.19 and according to POFA is deemed to be delivered 2 working days after posting. Weekends are not deemed to be working days so the NTK is deemed to be delivered on Monday 29th which is outside the 14 day limit and, therefore, unenforceable aganst the keeper. In fact, the NTK arrived on 2.5.19 suggesting that the NTK was either backdated or not sent on the day on the NTK.

The assessor may fail to appreciate the point unlees it is laid out as if for an idiot.