PCN where permit not transferred to vehicle

Cornerhog82

Umkomaas wrote: »

You need to give him some background then list the issues of dispute with evidence to support your position.

This isn’t an opportunity to have a moan about a decision you don’t like, you need to do a surgical dismantling of the areas in which the assessor has erred.

You don’t want to be sending pages and pages of verbiage (as we often see on here in War and Peace disproportionate rants), but neither do you want to be sending a curt ‘The assessor is wrong in a, b, and c - please review’ complaint.

That's the approach being taken - complaint is due to the correct process not being followed by the assessor and that they have shifted a POPLA code to another party and not allowed them their own chance for a POPLA appeal.

Coupon-mad

Yes, the point is, IF the PPC had wanted the recently-named third party driver to be given a POPLA code instead of the keeper appellant, then the way forward was always pretty simple for the PPC:

- withdraw from this POPLA appeal and withdraw this code
- not contest it, so no decision was made by POPLA and no fee payable by the PPC
- start again with a PCN by post to the named driver, now they have that data
- give that completely different person a right to appeal, and a new POPLA code.

Instead, what they did was forced a RK into a corner and asked POPLA to sort out their mess, and astonishingly, because they found the entire thing confusing, POPLA did! Completely wrongly saying that a different person 'owned' the rights to use that first POPLA code, a person who has had no input thus far and has never even received a PCN, rejection letter, nothing. They are the driver but that is not the person who the operator has sent a PCN to (at all, thus far), so for POPLA to suggest that a keeper has to pass all this data to the driver is against the GDPR and utter madness on POPLA's part to support the operator who should never have contested this POPLA appeal, if they intended to in fact pursue another person after all.

Remind the Lead Adjudicator that naming the driver is a keeper's right at ANY stage pre-court, and just because this one got messy and the operator tried to shift a POPLA code from one individual to another, is not a reason for his staff to go along with that flawed approach and breach the GDPR in this way by refusing to let the rightful recipient of the POPLA code use it.

They should have told the PPC to withdraw, NOT the keeper, who had done nothing wrong and was the only person with a PCN to appeal.

Umkomaas

Umkomaas wrote: »

....... you need to do a surgical dismantling of the areas in which the assessor has erred.

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes, the point is, IF the PPC had wanted the recently-named third party driver to be given a POPLA code instead of the keeper appellant, then the way forward was always pretty simple for the PPC:

- withdraw from this POPLA appeal and withdraw this code
- not contest it, so no decision was made by POPLA and no fee payable by the PPC
- start again with a PCN by post to the named driver, now they have that data
- give that completely different person a right to appeal, and a new POPLA code.

Instead, what they did was forced a RK into a corner and asked POPLA to sort out their mess, and astonishingly, because they found the entire thing confusing, POPLA did! Completely wrongly saying that a different person 'owned' the rights to use that first POPLA code, a person who has had no input thus far and has never even received a PCN, rejection letter, nothing. They are the driver but that is not the person who the operator has sent a PCN to (at all, thus far), so for POPLA to suggest that a keeper has to pass all this data to the driver is against the GDPR and utter madness on POPLA's part to support the operator who should never have contested this POPLA appeal, if they intended to in fact pursue another person after all.

Remind the Lead Adjudicator that naming the driver is a keeper's right at ANY stage pre-court, and just because this one got messy and the operator tried to shift a POPLA code from one individual to another, is not a reason for his staff to go along with that flawed approach and breach the GDPR in this way by refusing to let the rightful recipient of the POPLA code use it.

They should have told the PPC to withdraw, NOT the keeper, who had done nothing wrong and was the only person with a PCN to appeal.

Surgical dismantling done! Coupon-mad at her best.

Cornerhog82

Email sent for attention of John Gallagher at POPLA - already received confirmation that the complaint has been escalated and response expected in 7 to 21 days.

Email was sent before Coupon-Mad's excellent dismantling above. However, email sent to JG points out that the POPLA code cannot be shifted to another party and that the PPC should have withdrawn from the appeal if they wished to pursue the driver. By continuing down this path and not issuing a new PCN to the driver, they have in fact removed the legitimate opportunity for the driver to respond, obtain any subsequent rejection letter and POPLA code and submit their own appeal to POPLA - it would appear the assessor has been quite complicit in this process, allowing the PPC to pursue the driver without doing any of the above and carrying on using the RK's POPLA code.

Will update once POPLA reply.

Coupon-mad

email sent to JG points out that the POPLA code cannot be shifted to another party and that the PPC should have withdrawn from the appeal if they wished to pursue the driver. By continuing down this path and not issuing a new PCN to the driver, they have in fact removed the legitimate opportunity for the driver to respond, obtain any subsequent rejeciton letter and POPLA code and submit their own appeal to POPLA - it would appear the assessor has been quite complicit in this process, allowing the PPC to pursue the driver without doing any of the above and carrying on using the RK's POPLA code.

Very good!

Cornerhog82

Still no reply from POPLA. In the meantime the PPC have sent the PCNs relating to the 2 'unsuccessful' appeals to the driver. They do openly state the parking was in May and the pcn to the driver states August. Obviously after they tried to shift the pcn. Will chase popla again RE the complaint.

Cornerhog82

Email received from POPLA apologising for the delay and that this has been escalated – no explanation about the delay.

Return email sent to POPLA chasing an urgent response and outlining that the driver is now being pursued by the PPC and this is the result of the fact that POPLA followed a flawed process and have allowed the PPC to do so.

Cornerhog82

Here's the latest from POPLA complaints, not John Gallagher directly.

They've reviewed the case and are satisfied that the correct POPLA process has been followed!!??


As they requested third party authority from the RK, which wasn't sent, understandably, the correct POPLA process was followed in withdrawing the case!!

POPLA say they advised that the operator was not pursuing the registered keeper as the driver had been identified.

So they are actually saying it was fine to transfer the POPLA code from RK to driver.

What a joke!

Coupon-mad

Leave it then! They are hopeless.

The funny thing is the PPC might try to pursue the keeper and yet they can't.

If they try to pursue the driver then they need to send a PCN to the driver.

Cornerhog82

The PPC sent a PCN to the driver, which showed the original reference number that they issued to the RK. This was after the RK had submitted the POPLA and transferred liability. So they just changed the name and address. It clearly also stated the contravention took place in May, but when sending the readdressed PCN to the driver, they put an issue date of August. But this was during the POPLA appeal.

I'm a little unclear where this leaves the driver.