Pcn - ncp

greenbluegreen

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You only had SIX DAYS to make comments then the window closes.

Did they prove this?

They did not, no.

They have also pretty much ignored :

"5) ANPR system is not reliable, as per the above point (4) ,"

No evidence of the car being parked in a space or ANPR reports etc.

Draft:

2. No evidence of Landowner Authority

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full
compliance:
7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that
they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.
7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:
a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly
defined
b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on
hours of operation
c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control
and enforcement
d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

This has never been responded to - no contract has been provided. No evidence has been submitted to confirm the existence of a contract, the agreement itself with signature of the landlord.

TBC

I'm going heavy on that, looking the forum for something useful to add about Contract with Landlord. (or the lack of)

Update: I'm still stuck - I'm having difficulty wording this one, what should a formal speech look like when there is no evidence of landlord authority (contract etc) provided?

I have until midnight on Tuesday to make comments, not in a good position considering clock is ticking.

Not ideal that I'm having a nightmare with password resets, I've requested few yesterday, they arrived few hours later (1:26am), I'm trying to log-in with the last one sent and I am unable to.

(30min since my last password reset request, no email... )
(Still no password reset email... )

Coupon-mad

Don't repeat this in your comments:

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full
compliance:
7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that
they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.
7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:
a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly
defined
b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on
hours of operation
c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control
and enforcement
d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

Just do a couple of lines that tells POPLA that the operator has failed to show they have landowner authority so the PCN cannot be shown to have been properly given and must be cancelled.

Forget this:

They have also pretty much ignored :

"5) ANPR system is not reliable, as per the above point (4) ,"

No evidence of the car being parked in a space or ANPR reports etc.

MistyZ

greenbluegreen wrote: »

Update: I'm still stuck - I'm having difficulty wording this one, what should a formal speech look like when there is no evidence of landlord authority (contract etc) provided?

You don't need to use formal speech in a rebuttal. You can use abbreviations (e.g. when referring to parking company, you can miss out little words like 'the' (as I've just done in this sentence), you can use bullet points.

Your comments need to be very clear but short & to the point. You point out that the PPC have NOT refuted your POPLA points. And use capitals for emphasis as I just did with 'NOT' (not italics or underlining 'cos they don't seem to work at this stage).

Nice and clear and brief. And that is perfectly reasonable because you only have 2,000 characters - not words, characters.

You've already done it re. lack of landowner contract: 'This has never been responded to - no contract has been provided. No evidence has been submitted to confirm the existence of a contract, the agreement itself with signature of the landlord.' Make it even shorter, e.g. 'NCP have not shown ANY evidence of Landowner Contract at all.' Assert that your appeal must therefore be allowed as C-m suggested.

greenbluegreen

I've finally received a password (4am) so I can log back to POPLA's webpage.

I've however written to POPLA about my login issues and they've replied with the below:

Dear XXXXXXXX

The operator has uploaded its evidence via our portal. As you have not had the opportunity to view the information we have attached it to this email.
You have seven days from the date of this email to provide comments on the evidence given. The quickest way to do this is by replying directly.
Please note that these comments must relate to the grounds of appeal you submitted when first lodging your appeal with POPLA, we do not accept new grounds of appeal at this stage.
Any comments received after the period of seven days has ended will not be considered.
Kind regards
POPLA Team

They're basically extending my time to respond by another 7 days and removing the character limitation (as I'll be replying on an email). Can this be used in my favour? Or is it best to stick to their webpage and make a short reply as suggested above?

MistyZ

greenbluegreen wrote: »

They're basically extending my time to respond by another 7 days and removing the character limitation (as I'll be replying on an email). Can this be used in my favour? Or is it best to stick to their webpage and make a short reply as suggested above?

I don't know which is better, email or their site. Someone will know I hope. Maybe it doesn't matter.

I think short is best either way - just sock it to 'em. Point out the obvious very clearly. You don't want to re-write the POPLA appeal & that's not the idea anyway.

greenbluegreen

Thank you all,

Comments are now submitted. Fingers crossed you'll hear from me soon, in a positive way. If not, I'll be back for further guidance when LBCC is sent to me.

Regardless, thank you very much for the support! Great community and the regular posters here are simply AMAZING.

greenbluegreen

I've received an update: 
"Your appeal was successful, 
As your appeal was successful, your parking charge is not effective and you do not need to take any further action" 
I can't even describe how reading this feels! I really appreciate all your help guys Coupon-mad , Mistyz , all others who helped me with this one! Amazing community. I'm at work but will post the whole reply so others can see. 

Le_Kirk

Well done!  A load off your mind.

greenbluegreen

********, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated 25/11/2019 acting as a notice to the registered keeper. They wish to appeal against it on the following grounds: 1. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself 2. No evidence of Landowner Authority 3. No evidence of period parked 4. The ANRP system is neither reliable nor accurate i.e. does not show vehicle in a parking space 5. The signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for. The appellant has provided evidence to support the appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The appellant has identified as the driver on the day of the parking event. As such, I am considering the matter of driver liability. When entering onto a private land managed car park where terms and conditions apply, motorists form a parking contract with the operator by deciding to park on the land. The signage in place sets out the terms and conditions of the contract. In this case, the operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park The operator has also provided Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) images of the vehicle, totalling a stay of 1 hours 33 minutes. The appellant has raised a number of grounds that I will address separately or grouped together as appropriate • No evidence of Landowner Authority In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof lies with the operator to provide POPLA with clear, sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly. Also, it is the operator’s responsibility to provide evidence to POPLA, which rebut the appellant’s claims I would expect the operator to provide written landowner authority or a valid witness statement to rebut the appellant claims, that the operator does not have landowner authority to issue PCN’s on the site in question. 7.1 If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges. Section 7.3 of the BPA, Code of Practice states “The written authorisation must also set out: the definition of the land on which you may operate”. Based upon the evidence provided, I am not able to determine whether the operator has landowner authorisation to issue PCN’s due to no evidence of this being provided. As such, I conclude that the PCN was issued incorrectly. 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.

MistyZ

My heart sings when I read that a PPC's 'evidence' is landowner contract-free.  

'I am not able to determine whether the operator has landowner authorisation to issue PCN's due to no evidence being provided.'!!  NCP are a big company, they're everywhere, they brow-beat the public into giving them money yet they can't even demonstrate they have any right to operate at that site!  They should not be operating anywhere. 

Well done!