F1rst parking appeal Rejected

321p123

Hey guys so I had this email after I used popla to appeal. Company vehicle. 

It has come to our attention that you are not the named party that the operator is pursuing for payment of the Parking Charge Notice.  In order to review the appeal and issue the decision outcome to you, we require authorisation from the named party. To do this, please either: Reply to this email with a signed letter of authority confirming your details, the details of the named party and including a statement to advise that they are happy for you to handle the appeal on their behalf; orThe named party on the Parking Charge Notice can call us on 03301596126 (Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm) to provide verbal authority for you to handle the appeal on their behalf. Please note that if the Parking Charge Notice has been issued to a business we require evidence that you are authorised to discuss this case on behalf of the business.

Please note, we require the verbal confirmation, letter of authority, or evidence that you are an authorised party acting on behalf of a company, within the next 7 days. If we do not receive the information within this timeframe we shall withdraw your appeal.

 

This will leave the balance of the charge payable and should you wish to continue disputing the charge you may need to seek independent legal support.

Any thoughts on this would be helpful thanks

Redx

Seems straightforward enough , the driver was in a company van

An authorised company person should authorise it by agreeing and naming their position as owner or director or transport manager or whatever on behalf of the company

321p123

Thanks have sent it to them attached in email !! What a game ! 

321p123

OK so my appeal to f1rst parking has been rejected by popla now after all these months, will I get the debt letters as I'm acting on behalf of company or will they go to registered keeper address ??thanks 

nosferatu1001

They're likely to go to the same address

what reason given fir rejection?

321p123

When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park.
As the driver of the vehicle has not been identified, I must ensure that the operator has complied with the strict requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. PoFA 2012 is used to transfer liability for the PCN from the driver of the vehicle, to the keeper of the vehicle when the driver has not been identified.
 I must consider if the notice meets the requirements of PoFA 2012 (Schedule 4, Paragraph 8(2)), I am satisfied that the Notice to Keeper that was sent on 18 August 2020 meets the requirements and was sent within the “relevant period”, as outlined within the act.
As such, liability for the PCN is with the registered keeper of the vehicle.
The operator has provided photographs of the signage, which it has installed around the car park. These signs show the following terms and conditions: “A Parking Charge Notice (PCN) of £100 will be issued in the following circumstances: Parked in any zone, area or electric bay of this land without displaying a valid permit, face up in the windscreen”.
The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the driver was parked in a restricted area. The appellant advises that the signage make no mention of a grace period for parking in the loading bays.
 There is no requirement for the operator to allow a grace period for loading. If the operator had wanted to permit drivers using the loading bay and grace period for this purpose it would have stated this on the signage.
The fact that the signage makes no mention of a grace period for load confirms that this is not permitted. Drivers have five minutes as a consideration period as set out by Section 13.1 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice.
When the driver noticed that a permit was required, having read the signage, I would have expected them to have left the site within the period allowed.
They explain that the operator has failed to establish keeper liability. In this case the operator has successfully used the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to transfer liability from the driver of the vehicle the keeper of the vehicle.
 In this case the keeper is a business and the appellant has appealed on behalf of that business.
They advise that the signage is inadequate and fails to adequality state the sum of the PCN.
Within its evidence pack the operator has provided an example of the signage and photographs showing it at the site.
Section 19 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice sets out the requirements for signage. Having reviewed this evidence I can see that there is clear prominent signage in clear view of where the driver chose to park.
 The signage is easy to read and understand and there is no indication that it or the font used is not of the required size.
 The sum of the PCN is prominently stated on the signage which meets the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
They dispute that the operator has the authority of the landowner to manage the site.
Within its evidence pack the operator has provided a redacted copy of the contract it has with the landowner.
 The appellant has not provided any evidence which would cause me to have concerns about the validity of this document.
By parking without a valid permit, the driver has breached the terms and conditions for the use of the site.
POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the PCN in accordance with the conditions of the contract.
As the terms and conditions of the car park have not been met, I conclude that the operator has issued the PCN correctly, the appeal is refused.

nosferatu1001

Paragraphs. Please edit. 

Coupon-mad

Get the rk company to name the hirer/lessee and give their home address to transfer liability.  That's what you should have done, because the POPLA appeal would have been 100% winnable.

Do that now.

321p123

Coupon-mad said:

Get the rk company to name the hirer/lessee and give their home address to transfer liability.  That's what you should have done, because the POPLA appeal would have been 100% winnable.

Do that now.

It has come to our attention that you are not the named party that the operator is pursuing for payment of the Parking Charge Notice. 

 

In order to review the appeal and issue the decision outcome to you, we require authorisation from the named party.

 

To do this, please either:

 

• Reply to this email with a signed letter of authority confirming your details, the details of the named party and including a statement to advise that they are happy for you to handle the appeal on their behalf

I had this and got a letter sent to popla authorising me to deal with it,  is that not the same? Thanks 

Coupon-mad

No, it's not the same.  This was the wrong move and threw away your argument you would have had as 'hirer/lessee' in your own name.