POPLA appeal Bp garage parking fine queue

KeithP

vickbson said:

KeithP said:

There appears to be some text missing in this paragraph...

1. A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served - no Keeper Liability can apply.

This operator has not fulfilled the 'second condition' for keeper liability as defined in Schedule 4 and as a result, they have no lawful authority to pursue any parking charge from myself, as a registered keeper appellant. There is no discretion on this matter. If Schedule 4 mandatory documents are not served at all, or in time (or if the document omits any prescribed wording) then keeper liability simply does not apply.    ??? some words missing here ???

 accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8. This is re-iterated further ‘If a notice to driver has been given, any subsequent notice to keeper MUST be given in accordance with paragraph 8.’

It wouldn't allow me to post the whole letter because the body character was too long, so I  finished missing words on the next post. Please read above.

I don't understand.

Please read again paragraph 1 of your PoPLA appeal.

There are some words missing from the middle of that paragraph.
It doesn't make sense at the moment.

Fruitcake

vickbson said:

Fruitcake said:

PoPLA codes last 32 days, so don't rush to submit it if the deadline is not tomorrow.

The rejection letter from met Parking Services stated to make an appeal to POPLA within 28 days from the 6th. 04 ?

Yes I know what it says on a rejection letter, but trust me, PoPLA codes last 32 days.

Therefore you have four more days to correct your appeal and add in the two points I have suggested.

Fruitcake

vickbson said:

Fruitcake said:

I'm surprised the driver allowed a scamtendant to stick a scamvoice on the windscreen if they were waiting in a queue.

You should also include frustration of contract, and queuing is not parking.

Have a look at this (old but still relevant) post from the Parking Prankster's blogspot, and quote the case and the judge's findings.

Parking Prankster: Waiting for a space is not Parking. ParkingEye lose in court. Beware of snakes at Fistral Beach (parking-prankster.blogspot.com)


3JD08399 ParkingEye v Ms X. (Altrincham 17/03/2014). Fistral Beach. The defendant spent 31 minutes waiting for a car park space during the crowded holiday season.

Have you complained to the CEO of BP

Received Notice to Register Keeper by post- wasn't on the windscreen

I am confused. If there was no NTD tbut there was a postal NTK, you cannot claim a NTK was never received. It must have been, Whether it was PoFA compliant is another matter.

If a NTK was received, was it PoFA compliant? If not, how did it fail?

Did it arrive by day 14 as per para 9 (2) (f) of the PoFA, the date of the alleged event being day zero, and did it include the mandatory warning beginning with something like, "If after 28 days beginning with ..."?

Fruitcake

vickbson said:

KeithP said:

There appears to be some text missing in this paragraph...

1. A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served - no Keeper Liability can apply.

This operator has not fulfilled the 'second condition' for keeper liability as defined in Schedule 4 and as a result, they have no lawful authority to pursue any parking charge from myself, as a registered keeper appellant. There is no discretion on this matter. If Schedule 4 mandatory documents are not served at all, or in time (or if the document omits any prescribed wording) then keeper liability simply does not apply.    ??? some words missing here ???

 accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8. This is re-iterated further ‘If a notice to driver has been given, any subsequent notice to keeper MUST be given in accordance with paragraph 8.’

It wouldn't allow me to post the whole letter because the body character was too long, so I  finished missing words on the next post. Please read above.

There are words or a sentence missing in paragraph 1 of point 1 of your appeal, a gap in the wording.

vickbson

Fruitcake said:

vickbson said:

Fruitcake said:

I'm surprised the driver allowed a scamtendant to stick a scamvoice on the windscreen if they were waiting in a queue.

You should also include frustration of contract, and queuing is not parking.

Have a look at this (old but still relevant) post from the Parking Prankster's blogspot, and quote the case and the judge's findings.

Parking Prankster: Waiting for a space is not Parking. ParkingEye lose in court. Beware of snakes at Fistral Beach (parking-prankster.blogspot.com)


3JD08399 ParkingEye v Ms X. (Altrincham 17/03/2014). Fistral Beach. The defendant spent 31 minutes waiting for a car park space during the crowded holiday season.

Have you complained to the CEO of BP

Received Notice to Register Keeper by post- wasn't on the windscreen

I am confused. If there was no NTD tbut there was a postal NTK, you cannot claim a NTK was never received. It must have been, Whether it was PoFA compliant is another matter.

If a NTK was received, was it PoFA compliant? If not, how did it fail?

Did it arrive by day 14 as per para 9 (2) (f) of the PoFA, the date of the alleged event being day zero, and did it include the mandatory warning beginning with something like, "If after 28 days beginning with ..."?

Postal NT Registered Keeperarrived 05/03 ( no NTD was ever received)

Date of appeal 29/03

Met parking rejected 06/04 with POPLA code to appeal within 28 days

Appeal to Met parking services was submitted using the template on the newbie thread.



POPLA appeal should be on the basis below and using templates on newbie thread?

(1) The Notice to Keeper is not complaint with FOFA 2012- NO keeper liability.
(2) The event did not occur

(3) No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers
(3) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with BPA Code of Practise

(4) Insufficient evidence of the alleged contravention

-The photos shown online can clearly be seen the car wasn't parked but waiting can on the queue .

vickbson

This was a rejection from Met Parking Service

Dear XXX

Re: PCN XXX

Site BP XXX

Issue date: 06/03

POPLA Verification Code XXXX

Thank you for your correspondence received in regards to the above PCN.

The terms and conditions of parking are clearly stated on the signs prominently displayed around the site. These include that parking is for customers whilst on the premises only and that there is a maximum permitted stay therefore, we believe the charge notice was issued correctly and we are upholding it.

We are confident that our notice to keeper complies in all respects with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act and you are advised that where the charge notice has not been paid in full and 29 days has passed since we issued the charge notice and we still do not know the name and address for service of court papers of the driver, we are entitled to pursue the registered keeper for payment of the outstanding charge in this regard.

The decision, which has been based on the facts of the case and takes into account our consideration of any mitigating circumstances, is our final decision. You have reached the end of our internal appeals procedure and you now have a number of options:

(1) Pay or, if you were not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the incident, request the driver to pay the parking PCN at the prevailing price of £100 within 14 days of today's date . Please note that if payment is not received by this date the parking charge will be payable at £100 and further costs will accrue if the case passed to our debt recovery agent for collection or if we need to proceed with court action to collect the money due to us.

(2) Make an appeal to POPLA, the independent Appeal Service with 28 days of the date of this letter by going to the online appeals system at www XXX using the verification code XXXX . Please note that POPLA will consider the evidence of both parties and make their own decision based upon the facts and application of the relevant law. Please note that if you opt to appeal to POPLA and should POPLA decision NOT go in your favour , you will be required to pay the full amount of £100 .00 Please note if the contravention occurred in Scotland only the driver may appeal to POPLA. By law we are also required to inform you thar Ombudsman Services (www....) providesan alternative dispute resolution service that would competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not chosen to parcitipate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA as explained above.

If you choose to do nothing, we will seek to recover the monies owed to us via our debt recovery procedures and may proceed with court actions.

 They provided clear pictures of the signs but I cannot see any mention of grace periods.

Coupon-mad

Grace periods are never on signs and don't need to be, because people would think it was extra time they could stay parked.  That doesn't mean consideration and grace periods (to arrive, park, read the signs and decide to stay or go, then at the end, time to leave) are not a thing because they are.  They just are not publicised.

Fruitcake

vickbson said:

Fruitcake said:

vickbson said:

Fruitcake said:

I'm surprised the driver allowed a scamtendant to stick a scamvoice on the windscreen if they were waiting in a queue.

You should also include frustration of contract, and queuing is not parking.

Have a look at this (old but still relevant) post from the Parking Prankster's blogspot, and quote the case and the judge's findings.

Parking Prankster: Waiting for a space is not Parking. ParkingEye lose in court. Beware of snakes at Fistral Beach (parking-prankster.blogspot.com)


3JD08399 ParkingEye v Ms X. (Altrincham 17/03/2014). Fistral Beach. The defendant spent 31 minutes waiting for a car park space during the crowded holiday season.

Have you complained to the CEO of BP

Received Notice to Register Keeper by post- wasn't on the windscreen

I am confused. If there was no NTD tbut there was a postal NTK, you cannot claim a NTK was never received. It must have been, Whether it was PoFA compliant is another matter.

If a NTK was received, was it PoFA compliant? If not, how did it fail?

Did it arrive by day 14 as per para 9 (2) (f) of the PoFA, the date of the alleged event being day zero, and did it include the mandatory warning beginning with something like, "If after 28 days beginning with ..."?

Postal NT Registered Keeperarrived 05/03 ( no NTD was ever received)

Date of appeal 29/03

Met parking rejected 06/04 with POPLA code to appeal within 28 days

Appeal to Met parking services was submitted using the template on the newbie thread.



POPLA appeal should be on the basis below and using templates on newbie thread?

(1) The Notice to Keeper is not complaint with FOFA 2012- NO keeper liability.
(2) The event did not occur

(3) No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers
(3) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with BPA Code of Practise

(4) Insufficient evidence of the alleged contravention

-The photos shown online can clearly be seen the car wasn't parked but waiting can on the queue .

(1) No idea. You haven't told us if the NTK was or wasn't PoFA compliant. That's why I asked,

Did it arrive by day 14 as per para 9 (2) (f) of the PoFA, the date of the alleged event being day zero, and did it include the mandatory warning beginning with something like, "If after 28 days beginning with ..."?


(2) Yes, but add, The vehicle was not parked and quote the court case I referred to earlier. Waiting in a queue for a car wash is the same as waiting for a space.


You have two number 3s. Yes to both but swap the order.


(4) No, this is a repeat of (2)


You need to include points 2 and 4 from your initial post.

vickbson

Fruitcake said:

vickbson said:

Fruitcake said:

vickbson said:

Fruitcake said:

I'm surprised the driver allowed a scamtendant to stick a scamvoice on the windscreen if they were waiting in a queue.

You should also include frustration of contract, and queuing is not parking.

Have a look at this (old but still relevant) post from the Parking Prankster's blogspot, and quote the case and the judge's findings.

Parking Prankster: Waiting for a space is not Parking. ParkingEye lose in court. Beware of snakes at Fistral Beach (parking-prankster.blogspot.com)


3JD08399 ParkingEye v Ms X. (Altrincham 17/03/2014). Fistral Beach. The defendant spent 31 minutes waiting for a car park space during the crowded holiday season.

Have you complained to the CEO of BP

Received Notice to Register Keeper by post- wasn't on the windscreen

I am confused. If there was no NTD tbut there was a postal NTK, you cannot claim a NTK was never received. It must have been, Whether it was PoFA compliant is another matter.

If a NTK was received, was it PoFA compliant? If not, how did it fail?

Did it arrive by day 14 as per para 9 (2) (f) of the PoFA, the date of the alleged event being day zero, and did it include the mandatory warning beginning with something like, "If after 28 days beginning with ..."?

Postal NT Registered Keeperarrived 05/03 ( no NTD was ever received)

Date of appeal 29/03

Met parking rejected 06/04 with POPLA code to appeal within 28 days

Appeal to Met parking services was submitted using the template on the newbie thread.



POPLA appeal should be on the basis below and using templates on newbie thread?

(1) The Notice to Keeper is not complaint with FOFA 2012- NO keeper liability.
(2) The event did not occur

(3) No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers
(3) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with BPA Code of Practise

(4) Insufficient evidence of the alleged contravention

-The photos shown online can clearly be seen the car wasn't parked but waiting can on the queue .

(1) No idea. You haven't told us if the NTK was or wasn't PoFA compliant. That's why I asked,

Did it arrive by day 14 as per para 9 (2) (f) of the PoFA, the date of the alleged event being day zero, and did it include the mandatory warning beginning with something like, "If after 28 days beginning with ..."?


(2) Yes, but add, The vehicle was not parked and quote the court case I referred to earlier. Waiting in a queue for a car wash is the same as waiting for a space.


You have two number 3s. Yes to both but swap the order.


(4) No, this is a repeat of (2)


You need to include points 2 and 4 from your initial post.

Yes, NTK arrived by 14 days . To be honest I don't even know what  PoFA compliant is .

Thanks for you input . Much appreciated. 

Redx

vickbson said:

Fruitcake said:

vickbson said:

Fruitcake said:

vickbson said:

Fruitcake said:

I'm surprised the driver allowed a scamtendant to stick a scamvoice on the windscreen if they were waiting in a queue.

You should also include frustration of contract, and queuing is not parking.

Have a look at this (old but still relevant) post from the Parking Prankster's blogspot, and quote the case and the judge's findings.

Parking Prankster: Waiting for a space is not Parking. ParkingEye lose in court. Beware of snakes at Fistral Beach (parking-prankster.blogspot.com)


3JD08399 ParkingEye v Ms X. (Altrincham 17/03/2014). Fistral Beach. The defendant spent 31 minutes waiting for a car park space during the crowded holiday season.

Have you complained to the CEO of BP

Received Notice to Register Keeper by post- wasn't on the windscreen

I am confused. If there was no NTD tbut there was a postal NTK, you cannot claim a NTK was never received. It must have been, Whether it was PoFA compliant is another matter.

If a NTK was received, was it PoFA compliant? If not, how did it fail?

Did it arrive by day 14 as per para 9 (2) (f) of the PoFA, the date of the alleged event being day zero, and did it include the mandatory warning beginning with something like, "If after 28 days beginning with ..."?

Postal NT Registered Keeperarrived 05/03 ( no NTD was ever received)

Date of appeal 29/03

Met parking rejected 06/04 with POPLA code to appeal within 28 days

Appeal to Met parking services was submitted using the template on the newbie thread.



POPLA appeal should be on the basis below and using templates on newbie thread?

(1) The Notice to Keeper is not complaint with FOFA 2012- NO keeper liability.
(2) The event did not occur

(3) No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers
(3) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with BPA Code of Practise

(4) Insufficient evidence of the alleged contravention

-The photos shown online can clearly be seen the car wasn't parked but waiting can on the queue .

(1) No idea. You haven't told us if the NTK was or wasn't PoFA compliant. That's why I asked,

Did it arrive by day 14 as per para 9 (2) (f) of the PoFA, the date of the alleged event being day zero, and did it include the mandatory warning beginning with something like, "If after 28 days beginning with ..."?


(2) Yes, but add, The vehicle was not parked and quote the court case I referred to earlier. Waiting in a queue for a car wash is the same as waiting for a space.


You have two number 3s. Yes to both but swap the order.


(4) No, this is a repeat of (2)


You need to include points 2 and 4 from your initial post.

Yes, NTK arrived by 14 days . To be honest I don't even know what  PoFA compliant is .

Thanks for you input . Much appreciated. 

Pofa compliant means what it says

It either did comply with the law named POFA 2012 , in both timescales and wording

Or

It didn't

So it either complied with that law , or failed to comply with the law , the check is made by you after reading post 1 of the newbies FAQ sticky thread near the top of the forum , by comparing the postal NTK PCN to that law ( the law of POFA is not mandatory )

Your Popla appeal wording depends on compliance or on non compliance , as appropriate

If met complied with the law named POFA , then it's pointless saying that they failed to comply with POFA

Plus a driver has no protection under POFA , so POFA is of more use to a keeper who was not the driver