Private Parking Solution - ticket despite having permit

stor

They rejected all the points I mentioned, I've listed the main reasons they provided without copying and pasting the whole block of text:

1) The operator has provided a copy of the Notice to Keeper sent to the Registered Keeper. I have reviewed the Notice to Keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant.

2) The operator has provided evidence of a site map showing 18 signs are displayed across the car park. The operator has provided the templated permit motorists must display whilst on the site. The operator has provided a Car Park Management licence, authorising the operator to manage the site on behalf of the landowner, signed and dated

3) The details invite the registered keeper to provide driver details within 28 days and makes it clear that failure to confirm these details will result in the keeper becoming responsible for any unpaid parking charges. As I have explained earlier in my assessment, I am satisfied that the requirements of PoFA have been followed and liability has been established with the registered keeper.

4) The appropriate permit was not displayed 

5) I am satisfied that the parking charge amount is prominent and therefore, matches the requirements of the ParkingEye v Beavis ruling

6) I am satisfied that the signage on the site is compliant with the BPA guidelines and PoFA, making motorists aware of the need to display a permit

7) I am satisfied that this agreement shows that the operator is authorised to manage parking on this land and an adequate definition of the site in question has been stated

8) Should the appellant wish to pursue any concerns they have about private information being displayed, they would need to contact the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) directly

It's unfortunate but nevertheless, thank you for all your help.

P.S. I will complain to ICO 

Coupon-mad

Not 'unfortunate' = normal. If that's only a meaningless loss at POPLA, you don't pay!

If the so-called NTK was in fact a non-Pofa reminder (not a NTK?) as you say below, I'd be complaining to POPLA:

The evidence for Notice to keeper (NTK) they have uploaded is the reminder notice they sent (which I shared here). 

But was it a NTK in wording?  Show us both sides again please as no-one here has time to trawl back.

Trainerman

Coupon-mad said:

Not 'unfortunate' = normal. If that's only a meaningless loss at POPLA, you don't pay!

If the so-called NTK was in fact a non-Pofa reminder (not a NTK?) as you say below, I'd be complaining to POPLA:

The evidence for Notice to keeper (NTK) they have uploaded is the reminder notice they sent (which I shared here). 

But was it a NTK in wording?  Show us both sides again please as no-one here has time to trawl back.

Yup. Just another example of how useless PoPLA is. Not fit for purpose !

Umkomaas

Did the PPC provide a copy of the original NtK (not the Reminder Notice already shown on the thread) in their submission to POPLA?  If so, can we see it please?

In regard to the Reminder Notice, you have redacted the dates on it. Can you tell us now the date of the parking incident and the date of issue shown on the Reminder please. 

stor

Hi,

No, PPC submitted the reminder notice (the one i posted) as their evidence. No NtK. 

The date of the parking ticket was 15/02/22 and the date of reminder notice was 22/03/22 

Thank you

stor

Coupon-mad said:

Not 'unfortunate' = normal. If that's only a meaningless loss at POPLA, you don't pay!

If the so-called NTK was in fact a non-Pofa reminder (not a NTK?) as you say below, I'd be complaining to POPLA:

The evidence for Notice to keeper (NTK) they have uploaded is the reminder notice they sent (which I shared here). 

But was it a NTK in wording?  Show us both sides again please as no-one here has time to trawl back.

Hi,
This is all they sent me, and it's what they submitted as NTK as part of their evidence bundle. 

stor

Trainerman said:

Coupon-mad said:

Not 'unfortunate' = normal. If that's only a meaningless loss at POPLA, you don't pay!

If the so-called NTK was in fact a non-Pofa reminder (not a NTK?) as you say below, I'd be complaining to POPLA:

The evidence for Notice to keeper (NTK) they have uploaded is the reminder notice they sent (which I shared here). 

But was it a NTK in wording?  Show us both sides again please as no-one here has time to trawl back.

Yup. Just another example of how useless PoPLA is. Not fit for purpose !

Yes, I was quite disappointed if I am being honest. 

Coupon-mad

Yep that is a POFA Notice to Keeper, you can see it is from the wording.  Issued under para 8 of POFA.

I do say in the NEWBIES thread that the NTK is the first letter, no matter what they call it.