FISTRAL BEACH, Newquay, Inital Parking.. please help!!

MinnieSox9

Thanks coupon mad you ��

I need to read over and refresh my mind on the whole thread. Been a while waiting to hear back from POPLA.

On the portal it doesn’t allow me to respond, just states

“ Unhappy with the outcome?
You cannot challenge POPLA's decision. However, there are alternative routes to resolve your dispute. You may wish to seek advice from the Citizen's Advice Bureau or seek independent legal advice.”

Should I reply to the email in which I received from POPLA complaining About the maths? Or email the citizens advice bureau ?

Coupon-mad

There is a complaits email given by POPLA I am sure, and this is not about not liking the outcome. This is about two errors surely:

The Assessor has tried to add up and has failed.

The Assessor says you identified as the driver but you did not.

We quite often tell people to complain to POPLA, to see cases where people have done that, search the forum for POPLA complaint John Gallagher.

As for the CAB, they are UTTERLY USELESS on private parking. Clueless. Guess what they would wrongly tell someone who has lost at POPLA?!

Umkomaas

Should I reply to the email in which I received from POPLA complaining About the maths? Or email the citizens advice bureau ?

Forget the CAB - they will tell you that having lost at POPLA you are required to pay - totally incorrect, the POPLA decision is not binding on the motorist.

I wouldn’t knee-jerk into firing something off to POPLA just yet. Wait for the outcome of your other appeal, because, if as I understand it, it was an identical appeal, let’s see if there are any discrepancies between the two assessors. Maybe the second will get this right, then you can really go on the attack.

MinnieSox9

Just had the second appeal through - REJECTED

Response -

“ Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has advised that the Notice to Keeper Sent by Post Fails to meet the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. The appellant has advised that the operator has not met the requirements of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice in allowing a grace period at the beginning and the end of the contract. The appellant has advised that the operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. The appellant has advised that there is no Evidence of Landowner Authority and the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. The appellant has advised that the notice does not state the period parked. The appellant has advised that the images contained within the PCN are not compliant with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. The appellant has advised that there is no Planning Permission from Cornwall Council for Pole-Mounted Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) Cameras and no Advertising Consent for signage.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that, the appellant has been identified as the driver of the vehicle at the time of the relevant parking event. The operator is therefore pursuing the appellant as the registered keeper of the vehicle in this instance. For the operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle, to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in PoFA 2012 must be adhered to. The operator has provided a copy of the notice to keeper; after reviewing this I am satisfied that; the operator has met with the requirements of PoFA 2012. The operator has provided evidence of the signage displayed on site. The terms and conditions clearly state, “Up to 1 Hour £1.80. Failure to comply with the terms & conditions may result in a Parking Charge of: £100.00”. The operator has issued a PCN due to unpaid tariff time. The site is managed by an Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system, the operator has provided photographic images of the appellants vehicle entering the site at 10:10 and exiting at 10:38 totalling a stay of 28 minutes. The appellant has advised that the Notice to Keeper Sent by Post Fails to meet the requirements of PoFA 2012. I have reviewed the PCN in line with Paragraph 9 Section 2 and 5 of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it has complied with the above. Whilst the appellant may believe that the PCN was incorrect because they did not receive the letter until 18 July 2019, the operator has issued the PCN within 14 days from the day after the parking event. The appellant has advised that the notice does not state the period parked. The appellant has advised that the images contained within the PCN are not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice. The operator has provided evidence of the full camera’s images taken on the date of the parking event; I note the appellant has advised that the images on the PCN are cropped there is no requirement for the operator to provide full images on the PCN. While I note the appellant has advised that the PCN does not state the period of time parked, in this instance the breach does not require a period of time parked as the motorist could have gained permission to park at any time, therefore the time the operator could determine there was a breach was on exit of the site. The appellant has advised that there is no Evidence of Landowner Authority and the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. In response to this, the operator has provided a copy of a witness statement, after reviewing the document I am satisfied that this complies with the BPA code of practice guidelines and I am satisfied that the operator has the authority of the landowner to operate on the land. The appellant has advised that there is no Planning Permission from Cornwall Council for Pole-Mounted Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) Cameras and no Advertising Consent for signage. The remit of POPLA is to assess if the PCN has been issued correctly or not any complaint the appellant wishes to make regarding planning permission and advertising consent would need to be addressed with the relevant authorities. For a contract to be entered into there are a few things that need to happen. Firstly, there needs to be an offer, which must be reasonably brought to the motorist’s attention. Within parking this is done through the signage at the site, which sets out the terms and conditions. For a motorist to be bound by a contract, they must have been afforded a reasonable opportunity to read and understand the offer. In this case the appellant’s vehicle entered the site, and the vehicle left after 28 minutes. Therefore, I am satisfied the motorist would have had sufficient time to review the terms and conditions and has entered into a contract with the operator and was therefore required to comply with the terms and conditions. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that when they enter a car park, they have understood the terms and conditions of parking. By remaining within the site, the motorist accepted the terms and conditions. On this occasion, by not making a payment for the duration of stay, the motorist 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”


I am going to when I get home tomorrow read over my PDF in which I attached for my appeal

Umkomaas

Whilst the appellant may believe that the PCN was incorrect because they did not receive the letter until 18 July 2019, the operator has issued the PCN within 14 days from the day after the parking event.

Hopelessly wrong! This is what the law of this country states:

4)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.

(5)The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.

(6)A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.

The key word is delivered; PoFA makes no mention of issued in this context.

I think this misinterpretation of PoFA is now systemic at POPLA and hopefully your complaint, quoting two separate errors in law, will bring the organisation to its senses.

If your appeals were word-for-word identical, how come these:

Decision 1

The appellant has identified as the driver of the vehicle on the day of the parking event. As such, I am considering the appellant’s liability for the PCN, as the driver.

Decision 2

After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that, the appellant has been identified as the driver of the vehicle at the time of the relevant parking event. The operator is therefore pursuing the appellant as the registered keeper of the vehicle in this instance.

Just absolutely abysmal!

Umkomaas

When the time comes (if POPLA turn down your complaint) the next stage is a serious complaint to the BPA on the basis that Initial Parking were in breach of the BPA Code of Practice in issuing a PoFA-based NtK when they could not possibly ‘meet the strict requirements’.

Making use of Keeper Liability provisions
21.6 If you want to make use of the Keeper Liability provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 and you have not issued and delivered a parking charge notice to the driver in the car park where the parking event took place, your Notice to Keeper must meet the strict requirements and timetable set out in the Schedule (in particular paragraph 9).

21.10 Yourlettertothekeepershouldpointoutthedetailsof the unauthorised parking event and ask for payment or request details of the driver. If you are not making use of the keeper liability provisions of POFA or you are unable to achieve the deadlines specified therein, your letter must not reference POFA or state that the keeper is liable.

Fruitcake

Did you answer the question about identifying the driver? I have only skim read but can't see where you have said this in your appeals.

Fruitcake

Assuming you did not reveal the driver's identity, this statement is not true.

MinnieSox9 wrote: »

Hi, I have just received my POPLA appeal decision back... they are rejecting my appeal ��

This was the response -

“ Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant has identified as the driver of the vehicle on the day of the parking event.

It is contradicted by the following statement. Both statements cannot be true.

MinnieSox9 wrote: »

She states the operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is the driver. I note this and advise that it has authority to pursue the registered keeper of the vehicle unless the drivers name and address is provided to it, I note this has not happened.

We already know the following is not true. We have seen several appeals this week alone where the assessor in each case has proved they cannot do simple arithmetic or understand the strict requirements of the PoFA 2012.

MinnieSox9 wrote: »

The appellant has advised that the Notice to Keeper Sent by Post Fails to meet the requirements of PoFA 2012. I have reviewed the PCN in line with Paragraph 9 Section 2 and 5 of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it has complied with the above. Whilst the appellant may believe that the PCN was incorrect because they did not receive the letter until 18 July 2019, the operator has issued the PCN within 14 days from the day after the parking event.

Now is the time to quote the Companies Act signature requirements. The contract is invalid and therefore the scammers do not have authority to issue PCNs.

MinnieSox9 wrote: »

She states there is no evidence of land owner authority. I have reviewed the operators evidence pack and it has provided a copy of land owner authority, this states the site it operates on and is also signed by both parties, I find this sufficient to illustrate the operator has authority to issue PCN’s on the land in question.

ANPR scameras do not record parking time, only time on site. The beach at this site is a long way from the entrance. Anyone parking near the beach will have endured a non parking period of several minutes in each direction. This time MUST be subtracted from the time on site in order to satisfy the requirements of the "period parked" in the PoFA.

In the case shown here, the judge stated effectively that the parking contract began when the motorist inserted money in the pay machine when the green light flashed.
It could be argued therefore that the parking period only began on acceptance of the contract at the point when the "green button flashed". It did not and could not have begun when the vehicle passed the ANPR scamera, therefore the true parking period was not given by the scameras on the NTK because they did not and could not know when the period began.

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2019/854.html

MinnieSox9 wrote: »

She states there is no evidence of period parked. The ANPR cameras on site show the entrance and exit times which is sufficient to illustrate the time the appellant was on site for, I note the appellant has not contested the time she remained on site.

You should complain to the PoPLA lead adjudicator about each point, showing your day by day countdown again.
You should also complain that there is no fair independent appeals process as long as assessors continue to show they cannot do simple arithmetic nor understand the strict requirements of the PoFA, the BPA CoP, and The Interpretation Act.

Similar complaints should be made to the BPA, the DVLA, and your MP about these problems within the unregulated business.

MinnieSox9

Wow! All of this information is amazing. So basically I need to COMPLAIN COMPLAIN COMPLAIN!!!! Not just let them walk over me. It’s so easy for them to try spook you. This is such a process to get my head around, as it’s all new to me, and I seriously appreciate all your guys help!!

I’m currently on a 6 hour drive back from Cornwall, but when I get home I will read over my 2 appeals and clarify there is no identification of the driver then can look into doing this complaint!

Fruitcake

MinnieSox9 wrote: »

Wow! All of this information is amazing. So basically I need to COMPLAIN COMPLAIN COMPLAIN!!!! Not just let them walk over me. It’s so easy for them to try spook you. This is such a process to get my head around, as it’s all new to me, and I seriously appreciate all your guys help!!

I’m currently on a 6 hour drive back from Cornwall, but when I get home I will read over my 2 appeals and clarify there is no identification of the driver then can look into doing this complaint!

"these complaints." You have two PoPLA decisions so have two different sets of complaints to make. Some of the points will be common, but they are for separate failures by the assessors.

Was it the same assessor each time or different ones?

This inability to count is endemic. I think this is the fourth one this week. Have a look at the PoPLA decisions thread and pick out others that have been rejected for the same reason. Quote these in your complaints to show how poorly the assessors training has become.

I've just picked this up from the response to the first appeal.

"as stated in POFA the 14 days starts the first working day after the breach, "

This is not true. The PoFA does not mention working days, only days. The assessors are making things up.