POPLA: matching PCN appeals, differing outcomes

MSDoodle

Hi,

I'm really hoping that someone can help with this unusual case as I can't find a similar one on this forum. I received 2 PCNs from APCOA in April, both of which were for January contraventions in a hire car. The contraventions were 2 days apart and I accidentally input my personal car registration into the parking machine, forgetting that I was using the hire car on both occasions. I appealed both tickets providing evidence that my personal car was in the garage and therefore couldn't have been parked on those days and using their evidence of their back end logs which proved that I logged my personal car reg into their parking portal in the nearby businesses (which entitle me to 2 hours free parking). They can also show that my hire car entered and exited within the 2 hours on both occasions. Also bearing in mind that the tickets were issued over 9 weeks from the date of the contravention, I did think this would be a sure win. However, APCOA rejected both appeals so I took them both to POPLA. I appealed both - it was a case of copy and paste and just change the date and times as the cases were identical.

I have received the outcomes and one has been successful and the other has failed! How do I tackle this failure of consistency? I have been advised to email POPLA directly with both case numbers and they will investigate. But I really want to get the wording right. Can you advise how I should approach this? Is anyone aware if they can reverse the decision of a successful POPLA appeal?

If I can figure out how to upload screenshots of the appeal outcomes, I will do that, but in the meantime, below is an extract from the successful POPLA appeal:
As the operator are chasing the appellant as the hirer they will need to comply with Section 13 of PoFA 2012 which states, “A notice to hirer can be issued; If within 29 days of the date of the notice to keeper (starting 2 working days after the date on the notice to keeper, if sent by post) the vehicle hire company provides the operator with • a statement signed by a representative of the vehicle hire company stating that the vehicle was hired out at the time • a copy of the hire agreement • a copy of a statement of liability signed by the person who hired the vehicle stating that the hirer will be responsible for any parking charges incurred while it is hired (it doesn’t matter if it refers to any other charges, it must refer to parking charges) The operator has failed to provide me with evidence that they have received the above documentation within the relevant timescale. I note the correspondence from the hire company says that it cannot disclose the hire agreement for commercial and confidential reasons. However, without the three documents, the operator is not allowed to issue a Notice to Hirer, as this is only allowed if the three documents are provided.

Umkomaas

Below is an extract from the successful POPLA appeal:
As the operator are chasing the appellant as the hirer they will need to comply with Section 13 of PoFA 2012 which states, “A notice to hirer can be issued; If within 29 days of the date of the notice to keeper (starting 2 working days after the date on the notice to keeper, if sent by post) the vehicle hire company provides the operator with • a statement signed by a representative of the vehicle hire company stating that the vehicle was hired out at the time • a copy of the hire agreement • a copy of a statement of liability signed by the person who hired the vehicle stating that the hirer will be responsible for any parking charges incurred while it is hired (it doesn’t matter if it refers to any other charges, it must refer to parking charges) The operator has failed to provide me with evidence that they have received the above documentation within the relevant timescale. I note the correspondence from the hire company says that it cannot disclose the hire agreement for commercial and confidential reasons. However, without the three documents, the operator is not allowed to issue a Notice to Hirer, as this is only allowed if the three documents are provided.

Can we see the same relevant paragraph(s) from the unsuccessful appeal please?

Coupon-mad

You will be complaining to POPLA then, that the assessor failed to consider the Notice to Hirer law about statutory enclosures and service timeline (POFA) and that you want the case revisited as a complaint.

MSDoodle

The outcome from the unsuccessful appeal is below. They haven't even mentioned the Notice to Hirer law. Several of their points are incorrect too. I did enter my registration and the APCOA system doesn't allow me to obtain evidence as there is no option to produce a receipt. So for the response to state that "no payment relating to this vehicle has been evidenced" is completely unfair as my hands are tied - the only proof is their back office system which does indeed prove that I entered my registration and also their photos which proves that my hire car came and left within the 2 hours (which incidentally are free anyway)! Full outcome is copied and pasted below:

The appellant has identified as the driver on the day of the parking event. As such, I am considering the matter of driver liability. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage on the site, which states: ‘Enter your vehicle registration’ and that a failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a Parking Charge of £70. The operator has also provided Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) images of the vehicle, showing it entered the car park on 28/01/2019 at 14:44 and remained in the car park until 15:51. The operator has provided a printout showing that the motorist’s vehicle registration number does not appear in their systems on the date of the event. The appellant states that an incorrect car registration was used to park on the day of the PCN. they state they used their personal registration rather than that of the hire car they were using at the time. The site operates Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras, which capture vehicles entering and exiting the site to calculate the time a vehicle has remained in the car park. This data captured is then compared with the online transaction record, and therefore if no payment or an incorrect payment is located for the correct vehicle registration, a PCN is issued. Although the appellant states a payment was made, no payment relating to this vehicle has been evidenced. Therefore, I cannot be satisfied that the whole period of parking was paid for and as such fails to comply with the stated terms and conditions of the car park. While I appreciate that the appellant has demonstrated the intention to make a valid payment, the fact remains that they did not. By not entering the correct vehicle registration, the parking ticket is invalid for the appellant’s vehicle to park. I am satisfied that this signage, displayed throughout the car park, clearly states the terms and conditions of the site. By remaining parked on site, the appellant accepted the terms and conditions. On this occasion, the appellant has failed to follow the terms and conditions of the signage at the site and as such, I conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

MSDoodle

Thanks Coupon-Mad for your response. It's good to know from your advice that I should keep it simple. Do you know if they can also reverse a successful outcome - is that something I should be concerned about?

Coupon-mad

Only if they failed to consider something in that case. Sounds like that assessor got it right.

Your complaint can touch upon the fact you submitted two duplicate appeals and one assessor got it right on the NTH issue, but mainly concentrate on showing that the 'wrong' assessor failed to consider the law properly, and thus part of your appeal has not been considered.

Put it that way and they have to consider the evidence he/she missed.

Umkomaas

The appellant has identified as the driver on the day of the parking event. As such, I am considering the matter of driver liability.

This is the killer as far as the Notice to Hirer argument goes. If you identified yourself as the driver, PoFA is out of the window.

Did you do so in your POPLA appeal, or in any other communication with APCOA?

If you framed your appeal in similar terms to those you have used here, then the inference as to the driver's identity can clearly be made.

I did enter my registration and the APCOA system doesn't allow me to obtain evidence as there is no option to produce a receipt. So for the response to state that "no payment relating to this vehicle has been evidenced" is completely unfair as my hands are tied - the only proof is their back office system which does indeed prove that I entered my registration and also their photos which proves that my hire car came and left within the 2 hours (which incidentally are free anyway)!

If you did, one assessor could have got this wrong, but not the one you are currently thinking.

Redx

Self incrimination seems to be the norm in this day and age, righteous indignation at receiving these PCN,s results in a rush of blood and writing a witness statement for the claimant, with words like I paid etc as a so called appeal, expecting compassion and common sense to prevail

POFA does not protect admitted drivers, so carefully check what was said, especially words like "I paid" etc

The words "My, Me, Myself & I" should not be used, especially not when trying to allege that a PPC failed the law named POFA