Inserted wrong Reg

greg2424

It was captured purely by ANPR

Redx

too much info so I have amended it for you, never let them know who did what and never admit to what a driver or keeper may have done

I have assumed 3 or 4 people in this vehicle , the driver , the keeper and the person who paid for the ticket , 3 different entities , the devil is in the detail so tell them nothing , assume the machine had an error and only printed a 0 , its for them to PROVE otherwise , and by who out of the 3 or 4 occupants of said vehicle

they have obtained keeper details and failed POFA, so no matter what happened on the day, or by whoever, the keeper has NO LIABILITY , keep it that way

greg2424 wrote: »

This is my draft, does this read ok?

Re: PCN No. ....................

I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car.

This is contested for three reasons:

1) I believe that your signs fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.Your unremarkable and obscure signs were not seen by the driver, are in very small print and the terms are not readable to drivers
2) The PCN did not arrive within the stipulated period of 14 days of the alleged offence, as specified within the POFA 2012, so you have failed to meet the strict deadlines to transfer liability to the keeper and should now cancel this charge.
3) The person purchasing the ticket had sufficiently paid the amount required for the length of the stay. the resulting ticket only had part of the VRM which may have been a 0 and the BPA guidance is that these minor problems should not result in a pcn.

Therefore, there will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 and offer me a POPLA code, or cancel the charge.

Should you have obtained the registered keeper's data from the DVLA without reasonable cause, please take this as formal notice that I reserve the right to sue your company and the landowner/principal, for a sum not less than £250 for any Data Protection Act breach. Your aggressive business practice and unwarranted threat of court for the ordinary matter of a driver using my car without causing any obstruction nor offence, has caused significant distress to me.

I do not give you consent to process data relating to me or this vehicle. I deny liability for any sum at all and you must consider this letter a Section 10 Notice under the DPA. You are required to respond within 21 days. I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.

Yours faithfully,

a few subtle difference , so take note of them , because words matter

greg2424

Redx wrote: »

too much info so I have amended it for you, never let them know who did what and never admit to what a driver or keeper may have done

I have assumed 3 or 4 people in this vehicle , the driver , the keeper and the person who paid for the ticket , 3 different entities , the devil is in the detail so tell them nothing , assume the machine had an error and only printed a 0 , its for them to PROVE otherwise , and by who out of the 3 or 4 occupants of said vehicle

they have obtained keeper details and failed POFA, so no matter what happened on the day, or by whoever, the keeper has NO LIABILITY , keep it that way




a few subtle difference , so take note of them , because words matter

Thank you so much! I'll whack it into a letter and send in the next day or two. Thanks again!

1505grandad

The letter will be in your Aunt's name - she is RK?

Umkomaas

greg2424 wrote: »

The parking company was Ipserv, part of BPA (they are on the list) and is a Notice to Keeper.

greg2424 wrote: »

One other point to note is that the offence occurred on 19/04 yet the NTK was issued on 03/06, that's 46 days

greg2424 wrote: »

It was captured purely by ANPR

So this can be beaten at POPLA, as long as there is no identification of the driver. The NtK fails the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4) para 9, woefully!

greg2424

Thanks for the support, everyone. As expected, the parking company have rejected the appeal. Seems very suspect to me.

1) If you read my initial letter set out above in post #9, you will see exactly how my letter was set out. Not sure how they've drawn any "admission" from that.
2) Point 2 of the letter seems totally ridiculous and makes no sense to me.... anyone else?
3) Not sure how relevant this is, but they keep spelling the Keepers surname incorrectly which is bizarre given her name is correctly spelled on DVLA documents. I'm wondering how this could be lost in translation between what I believe to be the DVLA and the parking company....?

Anyway, off to POPLA we go I guess!

Thank you for your appeal received on 18/06/2019 regarding the above detailed Parking Charge Notice.
I have responded as per your order of your appeal

1. The signage displayed in and around the car park has been approved by the British parking
Association, it is compliant and infarct larger then specified by the British Parking Association
guidelines.
2. Due to DVLA times line the Parking Charge Notice was not sent out within the period of 14 days this
is why the parking charge dose not refer to the protection of freedoms Act 2012, this may not deter
lpserv from recouping loss of revenue from drivers who are in breach of the Terms and Conditions of
the said car park.
3. You have proved not evidence of purchasing a ticket nor have you provided the ticket you refer to
that displays part of the Vehicle registration mark if this is the case and this evidence be submitted i
would have grounds to approved the appeal.

When parking within the said car park we have displayed our terms and conditions on entrance and in
and around the car park by parking within the car park as you have admitted to " The person
purchasing the ticket had sufficiently paid the amount required for the length of the stay" you have
agreed to adhere to our Terms and Conditions amd in clause 9. this is includes a declarations whereby
lpserv reserves the right to obtain registered keeper details from DVLA to recover any outstanding
charge.
Unfortunately you have provided no evidence to how a valid stay was purchased or that a minor
mistake was made on purchasing a parking stay and that you entered an incorrect Vehicles registration mark.

We have reviewed the case and considered the comments that you have made. Our records show that
the notice was correctly issued as your vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms and Conditions of
Parking.

We are therefore unable to cancel the Parking Charge Notice as it was issued correctly. We have now
extended the discounted payment period by 7 days to allow you time to pay the discounted settlement
amount. Please now make payment of £60 to reach us by 02/07/2019 or £100 to reach us by
16/07/2019. We must advise you that once the discounted settlement rate passes it will not be offered
again.

To appeal to the independent appeals service please gb to /popla.co.uk/appeal reference number
REDACTED

Payments can be made by cheque or postal order made payable to lpserv Limited. Please ensure you
write your Parking Charge Notice number clearly on the reverse. Please do not send cash through the
post.

By Law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services (https://www.ombudsman-services.org/
) provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such, should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA as explained above.

Yours sincerely,
Appeals Officer
Appeals Department
IPSERV Ltd

Coupon-mad

Point 2 of the letter seems totally ridiculous and makes no sense to me

No, it makes sense and they are right.

A non-POFA NTK is not void, it is allowed, but only allows them to pursue 'drivers'.

Hence why we tell people to appeal to POPLA as keeper, obvs!

See post #3 of the NEWBIES thread.

greg2424

How does the below read for the letter to POPLA? Pulled from post 3 on the newbies thread

ADDRESS
EMAIL
CAR LICENSE PLATE
DATE

Dear POPLA,

On the DATE, Ipserv. 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 “Parking without displaying a valid pay and display ticket or having a cashless parking event”. 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 - Ipserv’s own documentation (attached) shows that the event to which they refer occurred on 19/04/2019, but they did not issue the PCN until 03/06/2019, over a month later.
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 46 days after the alleged event. - see the attached PDF from Ipserv with the ‘event date’ of 19/04/2019 and the issue date of 03/06/2019 (ie, over one full month later!)


2)The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.
At no point have Ipserv 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 Ipserv with regards to their PCN reference REFERENCE, but they have written to me (dated 18/06/2019) to say I have been unsuccessful and provided POPLA reference REFERENCE.

I sincerely hope you are able to help me.

Many thanks,

NAME

KeithP

But Ipserv have already told you they are not using POFA to pursue as the keeper, so your point 1) is superfluous.

It is quite brave of you to go with a single point appeal of them not knowing the identity of the driver.

Nothing about signs?

What about the PPC's authority to operate on that site?

Suggest you need to read again all of post #3 of the NEWBIES thread. Have a look at the sample PoPLA appeals linked fro there and you will see nicely illustrated examples running to twenty pages or more.

Guys_Dad

KeithP wrote: »

But Ipserv have already told you they are not using POFA to pursue as the keeper, so your point 1) is superfluous.

It is quite brave of you to go with a single point appeal of them not knowing the identity of the driver.

Nothing about signs?

What about the PPC's authority to operate on that site?

Suggest you need to read again all of post #3 of the NEWBIES thread. Have a look at the sample PoPLA appeals linked fro there and you will see nicely illustrated examples running to twenty pages or more.

I disagree. Why cloudy the issue when you have a slam dunk, if properly presented.

If they are not using POFA, they can only pursue driver. greg2424 is saying he is keeper but not admitting who was driver. It is up to PPC to name driver.

I would rewrite the POPLA appeal a little emphasising the point. An expanded version of this below should be included in your appeal

"NtKs outside the timescale prescribed by POFA can only be served on driver.

I admit to being registered keeper but no admission as to who was driving.

If PPC has details of driver, I will happily pass NtK on to him/her but there is no substance to PPC attempting to serve a notice on a keeper outside POFA unless they can prove keeper and driver were the same person. It is entirely the PPC's fault that they have not adhered to the provisions of POFA and then attempting to bluster te registered keeper into paying"