ParkingEye POPLA Rebuttal help

Appealant123

FYI - thank you guys for your support with this!!

Decision: Successful
Assessor Name: Natalie Hill
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted.

Assessor summary of your case
In summary of the appellant’s appeal he states that there is no evidence that the operator has Landowner authority. The appellant says that the operator has not shown that the individual who is pursuing is the driver of the vehicle. The appellant states that the signage is not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge. The appellant has included additional information with the appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
Having examined the operator’s evidence and the appellant’s appeal statement to POPLA, I am not satisfied that they have been identified as the driver. I must consider the appellant’s liability as keeper of the vehicle. The only way that the keeper can assume liability is through the operator issuing the PCN using the provisions of the Protection of Freedom Act (PoFA) 2012, in order to transfer liability from the driver of the vehicle, to the registered keeper (the appellant). As the notice has been issued directly to the keeper, I have considering paragraph 9 of Schedule 4. Having reviewed the PCN I can see that the parking event took place on 11 July 2019. The PCN was not issued until 14 August 2019 which outside the 14-day time frame. As such I am not satisfied that it complies with the above requirements. For the above reasons, I therefore cannot consider the PCN to have been issued correctly. Accordingly, I allow this appeal. As I have allowed this appeal, I will not need to consider any other points raised by the appellant.

Coupon-mad

Well done!