Euro Car Parks knuckleheads

Izzycat13

Thanks for the contributions, it's not something one does every day, i've been through the newbies threads and there is so much on there. On reflection, a deep breath was needed, especial thanks to Umkomass! I've made sweeping changes and a 'character count' of less than 2000.

Will this suffice?:

Dear POPLA, I refer to my appeal, and completely refute the ECP reply to which they have refused to address, firstly which clearly states that there is absolutely ‘No evidence of Landowner Authority’- the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. Where is ECP’s evidence of Landowner Authority?

 

1: As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. 

 

2: Euro Car Parks transaction report is irrelevant and is refuted absolutely, the frustration of contract being that payment was made and the failure of ECP to check PDT tally amount is wholly irresponsible. The appellant had to return to their car twice to find more coins to enter into the machine resulting in delayed exit and final extra payments of more than double amounts. ECP’s refusalto simply check and acknowledge this fact, and I hold ECP to account on this point that this is a corrupt omission. I refer to the submitted demonstrable photographs by the appellant at the exact time, illustrating events outside their control and frustration of contract with the PDT.

 

3. 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. Again, ECP refuses to address this point. In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA ‘keeper liability’ to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. ECP has not met the keeper liability requirements and therefore keeper liability does not apply. ECP can therefore only pursue the driver. 

As the keeper of the vehicle, I decline, as is my right, to provide the name of the driver(s) at the time. As ECP have neither named the driver(s) nor provided any evidence as to who the driver(s) were I submit I am not liable to any charge.

 

Based on the numerous points above I respectfully request that my appeal is allowed and look forward to hearing from you.

Fruitcake

I think you said in your PoPLA appeal who parked or who attempted to pay or who visits the car park once a month. I think it would be reasonable for the assessor to assume on the balance of probabilities that the person who did those things was the driver.
I think therefore your point 3 will fail, but hopefully they assessor won't need to get that far.

Coupon-mad

If this is comments stage you are not meant to be asking for proof, basically you should be pointing out that they have failed!

1: As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. 

 

Izzycat13

Thanks for the assistance, I'm almost ready to upload these words into POPLA..

Dear POPLA, Euro Car Parks have failed in their response.

1: ECP Failure:

ECP have refused to address or prove evidence of Landowner Authority!, I hold to account that there is absolutely ‘No evidence of Landowner Authority’- the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. Where is ECP’s evidence of Landowner authority? As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. 

2: ECP Failure: 

Euro Car Parks transaction report is irrelevant and is refuted absolutely, they have failed to address the frustration of contract being that payment was made and the failure of ECP to check PDT tally amount is wholly irresponsible. The appellant had to return to their car twice to find more coins to enter into the machine resulting in delayed exit and final extra payments of more than double amounts. ECP’s refusal to simply check and acknowledge this fact, and I hold ECP to account on this point that not only is it another failure: this is a corrupt omission! I refer to the submitted demonstrable photographs by the appellant at the exact time, illustrating events outside their control and frustration of contract with the PDT.

 3. ECP Failure: 

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. Again, ECP refuses to address this point. In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA ‘keeper liability’ to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. ECP has not met the keeper liability requirements and therefore keeper liability does not apply. ECP can therefore only pursue the driver. 

As the keeper of the vehicle, I decline, as is my right, to provide the name of the driver(s) at the time. As ECP have neither named the driver(s) nor provided any evidence as to who the driver(s) were I submit I am not liable to any charge.

 

Based on the numerous points above I respectfully request that my appeal is allowed and look forward to hearing from you.

KeithP

I make that 2226 characters. 

Umkomaas

I'm a bit uneasy about 'No Keeper Liability' as we've not seen the NtK nor has any regular confirmed its non-compliance. I've read back to your initial POPLA appeal, and the reasons you've put for non-compliance don't appear that concrete to me. You're going to have to have very firm grounds to get POPLA to uphold on PoFA as they seem to accept that 'near enough' these days is good enough. I don't see a 'killer' in your argument on this point. 

If you can quickly scan and upload a redacted copy of the NtK (the very first communication from ECP) we can run our eyes over it and either give you the confidence to leave your paragraph in, or make space for you to convert it to another point of dispute with the ECP evidence pack. Both sides of the NtK please, but leave any dates on it showing.  

Coupon-mad

That's a POFA NTK so remove that stuff, it's not appropriate to an ECP case usually.  You will win on point # 1 if they haven't proved landowner authority.

Izzycat13

KeithP said:

I make that 2226 characters. 

Thanks Keith, I can easily whittle the characters, but before I submit, just wanted it to be easy to read. 

Redx

Agreed , 3 is a non starter , so remove all of it

It would leave characters for something else , like Umkomaas says

Umkomaas

@Coupon-mad and @Redx have both replied, and I concur entirely with their assessments.