Euro car parks - Notice to Keeper

captainzorro

The_Deep wrote: »

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP, it can cause the scammer extra costs and work, and has been known to get the charge cancelled.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, 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.

[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]

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

Should I still respond to POPLA in addition to complaining to MP?

Fruitcake

What has the IPC CoP got to do with a BPA member?

Fruitcake

captainzorro wrote: »

Should I still respond to POPLA in addition to complaining to MP?

Yes if you want to win.

captainzorro

Fruitcake wrote: »

What has the IPC CoP got to do with a BPA member?

I copied this from one of the posts - i shall remove that - is the rest ok to send to popla?

thanks for your help.

Fruitcake

You can't ask for additional information such as the Landowner Authority policy to be supplied, but you can state that the contract between the scammers and the landowner has not been provided, therefore you believe they do not have landowner authority to operate.

The bit about the car park entrance being closed is irrelevant.

captainzorro

Fruitcake wrote: »

You can't ask for additional information such as the Landowner Authority policy to be supplied, but you can state that the contract between the scammers and the landowner has not been provided, therefore you believe they do not have landowner authority to operate.

The bit about the car park entrance being closed is irrelevant.

I have provided my comments to POPLA - see below
Thanks for all your help guys - Happy new year to all !!
I will let you know when I get a response - fingers crossed.

"Below are the reasons behind disputing this PCN:

Non-compliant Notice to Hirer

POPLA will be unable to determine that the operator has complied with the requirements set out in paragraph 13 of PoFA 2012, making the appellant hirer/lessee liable for the charge.

Section 14(2)(a) requires the documents named above to be sent together with a notice to hirer within 21 days, thus POPLA would expect ECP to demonstrate that it has provided the relevant documents to the hirer (which it did not) in the relevant timescales. This means that ECP have failed to comply with POFA and on this basis, POPLA therefore cannot consider the PCN to have been issued correctly and must allow this appeal.

Insufficient / unclear Signage
Signage at all entrances to the site is not illuminated and due to its placement, time of day and month that these historic contraventions are alleged to have taken place where parking enforcement was being applied would have made it impossible to read from a seated position in the vehicle as it enters/exits the car park whilst driving with due care and attention to oncoming vehicles and potential pedestrians nor when leaving and returning to the vehicle.

The appellant strongly argue therefore on the precending points that there is no legal basis for any charge in these circumstances.

Landowner authority
The contract between ECP and the landowner has also not been provided, therefore appellant believes they do not have landowner authority to operate."

Tank40

KeithP wrote: »

Sadly it look like you might well lose your PoPLA appeal but that does not mean you have to pay.

Why would the OP lose the POPLA appeal? Doesn't the adjudicator look at any of the evidence? Surely they ought to win the appeal purely on the POFA non-compliance issue?

Coupon-mad

Partly because the OP mistakenly put into evidence the very thing he is arguing was not attached to the NTH, and a lazy Assessor might conclude it was enclosed all along:

I also attached my copy of hire agreement with Hyundai.

I would never supply the document that an appellant is saying was missing. Opens POPLA up for an easy failure, as usual these days, as they are damn terrible now.

captainzorro

Yehhhhhh   Thank you to each and everyone of you for helping me with the appeal. Much appreciated. Got a reply from POPLA in my favour - see below.

Decision

Successful

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for “Your vehicle was not authorised to park”

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant advises they were the hirer of the vehicle. The appellant states they are not liable for this PCN. The appellant states the operator has not complied with the requirements of the Protection of freedoms act 2012 (POFA) and sets out further details of why. The appellant states the operator failed to issue a complaint notice to hirer. The appellant has provided a copy of a Hyundai Hire Agreement in support of their grounds.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

It is the parking operator’s responsibility to demonstrate to POPLA that it has issued a PCN correctly. In this case the PCN was issued for “Your vehicle was not authorised to park”. I understand the appellant has not provided an account of the day in question and appears to have misinterpreted the establishment of liability through the correct application of POFA, but I must consider it is always an operator’s responsibility to provide a full and unequivocal demonstration the PCN was issued correctly. As such, in order to prove the appellant was not authorised, I would have expected the operator to provide evidence that the appellant’s vehicle details had not been listed at the Pub on this day resulting the issue of the PCN. However, I have not seen any direct demonstration of this and resultingly I cannot conclude with certainty that the PCN was issued correctly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal. Whilst I note the appellant has raised other grounds in this case, as I have allowed the appeal for the reasons above, I will not be considering them.

Coupon-mad

Aha, the idiot PPC forgot to attach a white list of permitted vehicles to prove yours wasn't on the list! 

Well done!