Updated - Parking court defence

UrbanBadger

Hi,
I have used the standard template for the first appeal which has been rejected and I now have a POPLA code. Would you mind reviewing my appeal please and providing feedback?

Thanks in advance for any help.

The link to the PDF is hxxps://1drv.ms/b/s!AmmyMxazrCwsiKpDFiAAKOsiYS_W1A?e=nvvVkr

The_Deep

https://1drv.ms/b/s!AmmyMxazrCwsiKpDFiAAKOsiYS_W1A?e=nvvVkr

Nine pages! Come on

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams so complain to your MP.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

Big_Boi

This is rather sloppy, I'm afraid to say.

Firstly, you have appealed on three points.

2. 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
3. No Evidence of Landowner Authority

Points 2. and 3. appear the other way round in your appeal. Both points are not numbered in the appeal, whereas point 1. is. Each section should start on it's own page.

Secondly, was it a windscreen or ANPR PCN? Was their NTD / NTK compliant with POFA ? You could really go to town on their documents which need to comply with the Act.

Look at other Premier Park POPLA defences on the forum. You really could do with adding some more relevant content. For example, my last POPLA appeal was 26 pages long. :rotfl:

Quentin

The_Deep wrote: »

Nine pages! Come on

No - there's only 8 and 2 of those are photos.


It needs expansion rather than contraction!

UrbanBadger

Hi,

Thank you for your time and comments. I have done some further research and have expanded the content and ordered correctly. Would you mind re-reading and letting me have further feedback?

For information it was an ANPR NtK.

Thanks in advance.

Link to the PDF is hxxps://1drv.ms/b/s!AmmyMxazrCwsiKwWWruMtdeVm8iIiQ?e=ifGUDi

UrbanBadger

Hi,

Sorry to bump this - I have to submit to POPLA early next week, could anyone provide feedback?

Thanks.

UrbanBadger

Hi, I have now had a claim form through from the CCBC dated 10th November. I completed the acknowledgement of service 16th November, could you advise how long I have to complete my defence? Looking forward to your expertise on this forum to review once I have drafted. Thanks in advance.

Le_Kirk

Yep, @KeithP will be along to give you the deadlines and also some guidance on completing a defence.

KeithP

UrbanBadger said:

Hi, I have now had a claim form through from the CCBC dated 10th November. I completed the acknowledgement of service 16th November, could you advise how long I have to complete my defence? Looking forward to your expertise on this forum to review once I have drafted. Thanks in advance.

With a Claim Issue Date of 10th November, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 14th December 2020 to file your Defence.

That's over three weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

UrbanBadger

Thanks Keith.

UrbanBadger

Hi,
Please can you review these two points from the template abuse of process defence. Additionally I have a question if I should state I was the driver or phrase as below to not explicitly state that?
Thanks in advance.

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. 

3.       The Defendant would like to highlight the following points:

3.1.      The claimant is not operating in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice, especially in relation signage at the entrance to the car park and the use of vehicle entry images. 

3.2.      The signage in this car park is not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.

3.3.      The signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used. There is also a failure to comply with the data protection ‘Information Commissioners Office Code of Practice’ applicable to ANPR (no information about SAR rights, no privacy statement, no evaluation to justify that 24/7 ANPR enforcement at this site is justified, fair and proportionate).

3.4.      Vehicle images are contained in NtK which is not in compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. In addition, the NTK in question contains two images of the vehicle. Neither of these images show the vehicle parked and both are clearly whilst the vehicle is in motion therefore the NtK does not meet PoFA2012 requirements by demonstrating the period parked.

3.5.      On approach to the car park the signage on the road suggests that the car part is a council operated car park instead of a private car park. Due to the time of day and typical council car park operating hours this gives the misleading impression that charges will not be incurred.

3.6.      The car park was very busy on arrival with no parking spaces available. Therefore, it was not possible to park for some time which was greater that the grace period recommended by the BPA Code of Practice. The Defendant cannot remember the exact time spent waiting for a space as a result of needing to queue and the need to manoeuvre several times to allow other vehicles space due to the small size of the car park and the number of spaces crammed in to achieve maximum vehicle density. However the lack of clear obvious signage and an appropriate grace period meant a contract was never entered into by the Defendant.