POPLA loss to Premier Park LTD

ellaro9

Hello it's me again, but for my wife this time.

My wife got a charge from Premier Park LTD, she followed the newbies and also started a thread, but MSE have removed her account saying we have two, but are only allowed one, so the thread has gone.

At the car park in question she simply drove through it but never stopped, then came back later, they have ANPR at one entrance but not the other, so its a double-dip.

She appealed to POPLA using the advice on here, Coupon Mad did basically say don't be suprised if they find against you, and they have!

She has at NO TIME admitted as to who the driver was, she was very careful with that, yet poplas opening sentence in their refusal is "The appellant has identified as the keeper of the vehicle on the day of the parking event. The operator has provided evidence to demonstrate it has complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA. 2012) As such, I am considering the appellant’s liability for the PCN, as the keeper. "

This is pertinently NOT true so we're wondering what if any recourse she has for this, as almost her whole appeal is that there is no keeper liability.

KeithP

Are you hoping that someone will read those slabs of text you have thrown at us?

ellaro9 said:

She has at NO TIME admitted as to who the driver was, she was very careful with that, yet poplas opening sentence in their refusal is "The appellant has identified as the keeper of the vehicle on the day of the parking event. The operator has provided evidence to demonstrate it has complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA. 2012) As such, I am considering the appellant’s liability for the PCN, as the keeper. "

This is pertinently NOT true so we're wondering what if any recourse she has for this, as almost her whole appeal is that there is no keeper liability.

I see nothing wrong with that.
PoPLA has agreed with the appellant that she has not admitted to driving, so they continued their assessment based on the appellant being the keeper. Isn't that what your wife wanted - for her liability to be considered as the keeper?

ellaro9

I've copied and pasted and it's just done it as slabs of text, I'm trying to edit it, don't know why it did that.
POPLA sent a slab of text and I didn’t understand it properly, I thought they were saying she had admitted being the driver. 

POPLA have refused her appeal, they haven't considered anything to do with lack of keeper liability, and have found against her saying that Premier Park have achieved keeper liability and their signs are fine.

Sorry I'm trying to do ten things at once, she's in a flap.

Actually I'll just remove the appeal she sent.

I cannot understand why they have said what they have based on this appeal, so my question is do we ignore them now and wait for a claim or can we complain to POPLA?

Coupon-mad

I don't see you have any reason to complaint to POPLA.

They are allowed to find that there is keeper liability (the appellant not saying who was driving doesn't work in a case where the POFA has been complied with).  POPLA are saying the POFA was complied with.

Just wait for a court claim.  Good to talk to you again, @ellaro9!

ellaro9

Nice to speak to you again too Coupon, though I wish it were different circumstances. 

Sorry my first post was me in scatty mode, have taken stock now.

It was pointed out to them where they had not met keeper liability, in several instances. Their NTK is defective in numerous places and we quoted a different popla assessor who had found against them for this very reason. 

POPLA also went on to say "I note that the appellant has raised additional grounds for appeal in their comments despite not raising this when submitting the initial appeal. Please note that POPLA does not accept new grounds of appeal at the comment stage. Instead, the comment stage is to be used to expand on the initial grounds of appeal after seeing the evidence pack from the operator. As these were not raised in the initial appeal, I cannot consider these this as part of my decision."

The original appeal was the template in the newbies section, not sure if they mean that or our rebuttal, no new points were raised, we just rebutted what PP had said.

I’m happy to wait for a claim, been there done that 😊

Coupon-mad

Yes they mean they felt the rebuttal comments tried to introduce a new argument., Forget it!