POPLA Appeal vs Carflow Manchester Printworks

bigmetaltube

Hello all,

I'm in desperate need of advice to help me reply to a POPLA Appeal operators comments provided by Carflow Ltd. This is regarding an alleged overstay of 20minutes at the Manchester Printworks ANPR operated car park which I received a PCN for through the post. Carflow claim that I have not paid sufficiently for my duration of stay - what actually happened was that I had issues extending my stay via JustPark, which I tried to correct by overpaying for my second session but apparently that was not enough.

I appealed to Carflow using the template blue defence in the NEWBIES thread without stating the driver, which they swiftly rejected with comprehensive points against each of the points made in the text. I then appealed to POPLA, again stating registered keeper only, essentially stating the following points (in proper letter form). Carflow again replied with 8 pages of text followed by scanned letters and appendices (yet we only get 2000 characters to reply, go figure) - I have summarised their key points following mine:

1. A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served – no Keeper Liability can apply. 
Carflow stated that "the appellant has misquoted the Protection of Freedoms Act. Section 6 states: “6(1) The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor – (a) Has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8; or (b) Has given a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 9.” Carflow’s notice to keeper fully complies with paragraph 9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and as such Carflow do not need to fulfil the requirements of paragraph 6(1)(a)."

2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge
"The appellant has suggested that Carflow must identify the driver for this parking charge as the parking charge is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. However, as noted above, Carflow have fully complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and as such retain the right to pursue the appellant for this parking charge as the registered keeper"

3. No evidence of Landowner Authority – the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
Carflow attached a redacted copy of our contract with the landowner to their reply.

4. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself
Carflow stated that there are 21 signs around the car park (which are apparently 45% bigger than the minimum size requirement etc etc despite still being unreadable, but I digress) and attached images to their reply.

I do not have much time at all left to reply (I had to wait to get my account registered here as I didn't know where else to go) and really need some advice on how to reply to these comments, which POPLA give the opportunity for in 2000characters in the Motorists comments section, before a decision is made after tomorrow. Carflow are demanding £100 for the PCN and are threatening extra charges for debt recovery following this appeal process, which is a totally unfair system and makes sense why their parking is cheap as you realise how swift they are with their appeals rejection, in that it is not how they get their money at all!!

Any help greatly appreciated, thanks.

Coupon-mad

You will lose and Carflow read this forum.

With them, unless there was an obvious winning point. I would never have tried POPLA and the NTK wasn't non-POFA.  There wasn't a point you could have won an appeal on.

That's not to say this isn't defendable in Court.  It is, it just wasn't one for POPLA.

If you overpaid for the 2nd session and the delay was caused by their JustPark system, there is no 'legitimate interest' in pursuing you for a £100 PCN. That is a valid court defence.

If you'd come here first, I'd have suggested you didn't use the template and just told them about the difficulties with the top up.  I helped someone off forum with a similar case and just told her to tell them what happened and offer £20 to cover admin to cancel the case.  Carflow did.  

I dislike the company intensely but like ParkingEye, Carflow are better if you just say what happened and make a small offer.

You will lose at POPLA but download a full copy of all their evidence pack right now and keep it.  One of the only good things about POPLA is downloading and keeping the evidence pack (now) to help you defend the court claim.  You won't be able to access it later without demanding a SAR from POPLA.

Come back when you get a court claim and be careful what you post here, as there is a poster here who displays in his posts, a suggestion of a connection to that firm.

bigmetaltube

Bringing this thread back as @Coupon-mad predicted I lost at POPLA and have since been receiving threatening letters demanding a fee blown up with admin costs, otherwise court action.

What should I do now?

KeithP

bigmetaltube said:

What should I do now?

Re-read the last sentence of the last reply you received.

Here it is again...

Coupon-mad said:

Come back when you get a court claim...

Meanwhile, you might want to read The fourth post of the NEWBIES thread which explains exactly how to deal with debt collector's letters. But to summarise that post - ignore them.