Euro Car Parks Norwich - POPLA - Rejected 1st Appeal - Help

life4life

Also when they state (green part):

"on 2/3/2020 the reg keeper has informed us that the vehicle was on hirer to -me- therefore ECP followed due process and re-issued (I got nothing, they sent me docs only AFTER I first appealed on their website) the notice to the below address (my current one - and got nothing in the post or email)".

And again: "-me- then appealed the PCN".

But that's not true (unless I'm missing some points) because they haven't re-issued nothing between March 2nd and March 5th, when I HAVE sent them the appeal. 


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
What I remember as timeline:
1. Got email from hiring company about penalty (March 2nd) 

2. Googled about appeals/location/found the forum here

3. Tried to email landowner but got no response (March 3rd and 4th)

4. Then used the generic template to appeal to PCN on parking company website (March 5th)


5. They rejected the appeal (March 6th)



6. Got another confirmation the following day (March 7th)


7. Then on March 11th I got this regarding POPLA


8. I gathered info/photos/pulled together the appeal and appealed to POPLA

9. That's the full (and correct) timeline from my POV

MistyZ

I've skimmed through it all and have not seen any statement to the effect that they sent the documents specified in the PoFA paragraph 13 & 14 to the hirer.  

You did refer to PoFA in your POPLA appeal, therefore you can refer to it in your comments on ECP's evidence (anything new you raise is unlikely to be taken into account).  But did you know what you were referencing in your POPLA appeal, i.e. did you read through the relevant PoFA sections for yourself?   Here is the relevant part of paragraph 14:

 the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer. 

(2)The conditions are that—

(a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper;

 

The documents mentioned in para. 13(2) are these, and they all need to have been sent to the hirer for ECP to hold the hirer liable, all of them.:

(a)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;

(b)a copy of the hire agreement; and

(c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.

You did not receive all of these.  ECP did not claim to have sent them.  They may not hold the hirer liable because they did not comply with the strict requirements of the PoFA paragraphs 13 & 14.  State that loud and clear in your comments and you win.  Cover other stuff, but be super-confident and super-clear about this point, please. 

Fruitcake

MistyZ is spot on. Your main points for rebuttal should therefore be,

No NTH
No documents mandated by the PoFA as outlined by MistyZ. 
Shoot down any other points. As mentioned in a previous post, if you put something in your appeal that they haven't addressed in their response, then you tell the assessor the scammers must agree therefore the appeal must be allowed.
They must respond to each and every point you make.
For example, if you said, no landowner authority and they don't provide a valid contract signed by two authorised signatories from the landowner and scammers, then the assessor must find in your favour.

Remember that PoPLA codes last 32 days but you only get 6 days for the rebuttal.

life4life

Thank you guys, you're super helpful as always!

My deadline is tomorrow so, is the following ok to upload? 
--------------------------
From ECP's evidence uploaded by the operator - Euro Car Parks Ltd - can be ascertained how there is no proof or evidence that they sent ALL the documents specified in the PoFA paragraphs 13 & 14 to the hirer for ECP, failing to comply with the strict PoFA requirements, in order to hold the hirer liable. 

Paragraph 14:

the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer. 

(2)The conditions are that—

(a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper;

All the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) must have been sent to the hirer for ECP to hold the hirer liable:

(a)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;

(b)a copy of the hire agreement; and

(c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.

The hirer hasn’t received the above-mentioned documents, and the ECP did not claim to have sent them. Furthermore, there is no NTH. Therefore, Euro Car Parks Ltd, may (or should?) not hold the hirer liable because did not comply with the strict requirements of the PoFA paragraphs 13 & 14. For these reasons the appeal must be allowed. 

--------------------------

Coupon-mad

Your deadline is more than likely today for comments, as they count the POPLA email day as 'day one'.   So you get SIX DAYS from that to comment, using the portal.

may (or should?)

cannot

Fruitcake

The first sentence of your rebuttal doesn't make sense. 

You don't need to quote whole sections of the PoFA, just the salient points. 

You have only rebutted two points. There were seven points in your appeal. Their comments/evidence should have addressed all of your seven points. You should rebut all seven of their comments or rebut the ones they have addressed and point out any they haven't addressed so the point must be allowed.

From your PoPLA appeal: -

1.      The Operator failed to deliver a Notice to Hirer that was fully compliant with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) 

Whatever the scammers put in their comments, your rebuttal should be something like, None of the documents described in the PoFA paras 14 (2) (a) and 13 (2) (a), (b), (c) were supplied.

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.

You need something like, the operator has not identified the driver.

3.      No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. 

The contract does not identify the client, Workman LLP, as being the landowner or the landowner's agent. The operator has not proved it has landowner authority.

4.      Vehicle images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice – Non-Compliance.

Have they said anything about this? If not, you say, the operator hasn't denied it so the point must be allowed.

5.      The ANPR System is neither reliable nor accurate.

Unless you have proof of its failures, PoPLA won't accept it, even though we all know it is not fit for purpose. However, if they haven't challenged it, you say they must agree with you.

6.      The signs are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces.

If they haven't challenged it, you say they must agree with you.

7.      The signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for, which breaches the BPA CoP and the CPUTRs due to inherent failure to indicate the ‘commercial intent’ of the cameras.

If they haven't challenged it, you say they must agree with you.

MistyZ

You only have 2,000 characters.  So use abbreviations if their meaning is obvious e.g. just 'ECP' all the way through.  Only use long words if they really add force to your comments.  Leave out 'little' words as long as meaning is still crystal clear.  

Make emphatic statements e.g. 'ECP did not supply the hirer with the documents listed in PoFA paras 14 (2) (a) and 13 (2) (a), (b), (c). I note that they do not claim to have done so in their evidence.  This appeal must therefore be allowed'.  

That's probably all you need on the failure to comply with the PoFA.