One parking solution PCN

nosferatu1001

Two questions there...
it would be good to see a copy. 

Scrapit

the images show the vehicle driving in and out, not parked in position. Looking at the illegible timestamps on the photos I'm assuming that's when the timer started.

Redx

ANPR cameras almost always monitor time on site , not the parking time , been that way for many years

its a NTK, so to a keeper, and there is a POFA warning on it near the bottom of the front page, plus the POFA timescale seems to have been met but we cannot check as the date of sending is redacted

the BPA CoP in force at the time covers any Grace Periods and other issues including signage, POFA and the CRA cover laws that apply

Scrapit

Redx said:

the BPA CoP in force at the time covers any Grace Periods and other issues including signage, POFA and the CRA cover laws that apply

Sorry, what does the last part of your post mean? They did send it within the required time frame.
Also, is it worth leaving the fact they havent identified the driver for weightiness as per the 3rd post on the newbies thread?

Redx

I covered the 2 laws and the relevant CoP that apply in all BPA cases and is what POPLA will be checking if you ask them to

the grace period in that CoP was exceeded by the driver ,far too much and even under the old CoP 20 minutes was a stretch

if OPS complied with POFA then even if you include it the fact that they complied with POFA means nobody cares about what the driver did or did not do , POFA passes liability to you the keeper and has done so for 7.5 years, even if you do not agree with it

you can include no landowner authority, poor and inadequate signage , same as everyone else does , plus the BPA CoP states what an operator should do when a recent change has happened , like extra signage , nobody here or yourself has seen the landowner contract , but as its a recent contract its likely to comply and show authority flowing from landowner to contractor

I would say that almost every other point in your appeal earlier would be rejected by POPLA, thery would gloss over them as not relevant, that is not to say you should not include them , its my opinion on what they will do based on 7 years of coming here and seeing the results

so if you get them on anything it will likely be signage and the recent changes not communicated correctly to a driver , the transfer from driver to keeper responsibility seems to have been fulfilled due to following POFA, which you have already said they have done

a consequence of too much smoke and mirrors may mean that an assessor misses the one or two actual points that may win it for you , so diluting the mixture can make it ineffective

if OPS (or any parking company) have covered all their bases , then no appeal can win it in a case like this, hence why you are looking for that one chink in their armour

Coupon-mad

 from the newbies guide, is the point to compile excessive pages as part of the appeal to dissuade the PPC from continuing

Yes.  

But don't have the second point about 'the operator doesn't know who was driving' because it detracts and distracts the slightly less than clever Assessors (sad but true) that POPLA has, who can't add up to 14 even when told how it's worked out, not that this is relevant to your case.  I just mean their Assessors are not legally trained and many of them come across as dim template-using spoon fed robots who can't learn from earlier mistakes.

Why not change #2 to a point that says the car is shown on street and the oprator is put to strict proof of the boundary map (OPS never havea  boundary map).  And add that an unauthorised by the landowner Google StreetView screenshot, mocked up to suggest it is a true 'aerial view' with some coloured crosses on it, is not a boundary map.  Point out that the car is shown on roadway at a give way sign at a T junction and you believe the operator only operates a few bays and not the forecourt.

Makes it hard for OPS...they aren't the cleverest tools in the BPA box.  I am not saying theat road IS public highway, by the way.  I am saying, SUGGEST IT!  If itlooks like a forecourt/approach road then it is one.

Re your pic of the entrance with no sign, make sure it doesn't detract from the above point, so make sure you zoom in closer into the car park than that give way marking/forecourt!  And embed it into your appeal document, as an illustration, not as a separately uploaded image.  Make it easy for Tim-nice-but-dim at POPLA who is almost certainly doing these 'decisions' online in 10 minutes, in front of his telly.

if OPS (or any parking company) have covered all their bases , then no appeal can win it in a case like this, hence why you are looking for that one chink in their armour

Believe me, OPS never cover all bases and have no armour.  I've never seen them win in court when a Defendant turns up.

Le_Kirk

Good luck!

nosferatu1001

Best of luck!

D_P_Dance

I suspect that many judges, familiar with the scam, look for ways to find for the defendant. 

Coupon-mad

As you are about to submit an OPS POPLA appeal, please be the first person to upload THIS JUDGMENT:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6136572/one-parking-solution-warned-by-a-judge-that-they-may-face-an-application-for-a-civil-restraint-order/p1

POPLA need to see it.  Refer to it as a separate point in your POPLA appeal.
If you have already submitted the appeal, you will be allowed to add more after the lockdown, so says the POPLA website at the moment.  So add it then!

Every OPS case (POPLA or court) needs to show POPLA/Judges that judgment in full, the whole 69 paragraphs, and refer to it in terms of the 'wholly unacceptable' signage, etc. with 600 words in the smallest font.  POPLA will love reading that and you can be the first person to show it to them.

OPS will be spitting feathers.