Parking Ticket - Driver Left the site

Jenni_D

GreenStone said:

Thanks Coupon-mad. There isn't any other forum friendlier than MSN MSE :-)

Fixed that for you.  

B789

GreenStone said:

Thanks Grizebeck once again.  Kindly could you direct me to a suitable template for the driver didn't leave site. I couldn't find any other relevant templates in the forum. Thanks 

Template suggestion #1:

1. The claimant has not provided any proof the driver left the "site".

GreenStone

Jenni_D said:

GreenStone said:

Thanks Coupon-mad. There isn't any other forum friendlier than MSN MSE :-)

Fixed that for you.  

Thanks Jenni, didn't realise the forgivable typo

GreenStone

B789 said:

GreenStone said:

Thanks Grizebeck once again.  Kindly could you direct me to a suitable template for the driver didn't leave site. I couldn't find any other relevant templates in the forum. Thanks 

Template suggestion #1:

1. The claimant has not provided any proof the driver left the "site".

Appreciate your support 👍

GreenStone

Good evening, please is the below appeal okay to send to POPLA. Thank you for the support :-)
 

Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

 

I am the registered keeper of vehicle xxxxxx and am appealing a parking charge from UKPC on the following points:

1. The driver never left the site, the operator UKPC is put to strict proof that the driver left the site.

The driver never left the site whilst parked, the operator UKPC has provided no evidence of the driver leaving the site and the burden of proof lies on the operator to prove their case.

2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge

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. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

 

Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

 

As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made because the fact remains, I am only the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

 

The burden of proof rests with the Operator because they cannot use the POFA in this case, to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

 

Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA 2012 was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

 

Understanding keeper liability

“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

 

There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''

 

Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

 

This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:

''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''

KeithP

GreenStone said:

I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be)...

Of course you are. You are the one appealing.     
Did you perhaps mean you were the keeper?
I know you copied that from elsewhere , but you do need to read and understand what you are writing in an appeal.

No mention there about signs - or the lack thereof. 
Is that intentional?

Grizebeck

KeithP said:

GreenStone said:

I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be)...

Of course you are. You are the one appealing.     
Did you perhaps mean you were the keeper?
I know you copied that from elsewhere , but you do need to read and understand what you are writing in an appeal.

No mention there about signs - or the lack thereof. 
Is that intentional?

Is not needed in this case for a driver left site appeal
You got the gist

GreenStone

Hi KeithP, many thanks for your quick reply and help. I would prefer to use the keeper but was not sure as the UKPC alleged that the driver left the site. Kindly could you review my draft of five points on page 2, have mentioned the signs there. 
I will amend the #1 to
1. The driver or keeper never left the site, the operator UKPC is put to strict proof that the driver or keeper left the site. 

patient_dream

1. The driver never left the site, the operator UKPC is put to strict proof that the driver left the site.

The driver never left the site whilst parked, the operator UKPC has provided no evidence of the driver leaving the site and the burden of proof lies on the operator to prove their case.

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 "driver left site" has been a rubbish claim by UKPC for a long time.

I have never seen a UKPC sign that even warns people, but of course with the tiny print on their signs which require binoculars to read ... nobody knows.

See what POPLA say, it will depend if you get a real assessor or the teaboy.

I have never heard of a court case on this rubbish and it would be a very daft legal who would try this on with a judge

GreenStone

Thanks patient_dream, hope my POPLA appeal will be successful. I understand that every assessor is different and have their own mind.