ECP vs hire car visit to petrol station; appeal allowed

Tank40

According to a successful POPLA appeal in the pinned thread below, timestamps on operator evidence photos did not match the lighting conditions:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4488337/popla-decisions&page=95#3775
There were other appeal points, too to be fair.

It's too late for my appeals but having gone back over their evidence pack, the images of onsite signs for whatever reason have two time stamps and all iffer by a few seconds, which makes me wonder how the timestamps got there, which if any were original and whether this means images have been "digitally altered" (supposedly a no-no according to BPA CoP 20.5a
The address is wrong on this one too, being across the road from the petrol station (one other image had the right street as per "contract with landowner" but door number was out by a bit).
https://imgur.com/1hlirFz
So worth watching for in future, maybe.

Tank40

Appeal allowed   

Decision: Successful

Assessor Name: Paul E Walker

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator states that the vehicle was parked on site for longer than allowed. It has issued a parking charge notice (PCN) for £100 as a result.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant states that he is not liable for the charge as the vehicle’s hirer under the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012. He states that the operator’s photographic evidence is not compliant with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. He states that there is no evidence of the parked period. He states that the operator was not authorised by the landowner to operate on site. He states that signage on site did not make the terms sufficiently clear. He states that the automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) system in user on site is not reliable or accurate.
The appellant has provided a document in which he elaborates on the above grounds of appeal in great detail.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The appellant is the hirer of the vehicle in question. The driver of the vehicle on the date in question has not been clearly identified and the operator is therefore pursuing the appellant for the charge as the hirer of the vehicle in line with POFA.
POFA requires that when pursuing a parking charge from the hirer of a vehicle, an operator obtains from the keeper of the vehicle “a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement”, “a copy of the hire agreement” and “a copy of the statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.” POFA also requires that an operator issues a “notice to hirer” as well “a copy of the documents mentioned […] and the notice to keeper.” The operator has provided evidence to show that a copy of the relevant hire agreement, which includes a statement of liability, was obtained from the hire firm. There is no evidence that “a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement” was obtained.
I am not satisfied from the evidence that the operator has adhered to the requirements set out by POFA in order to transfer liability for the charge to the appellant as the hirer of the vehicle. I am not therefore satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly and I must allow this appeal.

ECP's not complying with POFA was always the strongest point although they were also non-compliant with BPA CoP in half a dozen ways any of which may have resulted in allowing the appeal too. Mr Walker kind of lost me in the 2nd half of his summary rationale, I actually pointed out they hadn't enclosed certain documents but it seems they hadn't ensured the hire company sent the correct ones. Possibly that's why they didn't forward them to me as per POFA?
Thanks to all who helped guide my ditherings here and for those who wrote the Newbies Post. I will try and help future potential victims of the parking scammers on this forum!

MistyZ

Tank40 said:Mr Walker kind of lost me in the 2nd half of his summary rationale, I actually pointed out they hadn't enclosed certain documents but it seems they hadn't ensured the hire company sent the correct ones. Possibly that's why they didn't forward them to me as per POFA?

Thanks to all who helped guide my ditherings here and for those who wrote the Newbies Post. I will try and help future potential victims of the parking scammers on this forum!

Well done!  Great news.

As I understand it the hire companies rarely if ever send all the docs to the PPCs.  I don't know why that is, but they just don't.  That's why non-compliance with the PoFA 13 & 14 is an absolute mainstay of any hire car POPLA appeal and is almost always the winning point.

nosferatu1001

Misty - the BVRLA and BPA signed a MoU to the effect that they would not send those documents
Hard to know why, as it means BPA members WILL get tickets cancelled at POPLA far more easily. 
The rationale is wrong as well. The documents must be *enclosed*, and they were not. It doesnt matter if ECP obtained them if they didnt then send them. But ah well - take the win!