Urgent - UKPC POPLA Appeal - Vehicle owner/driver left site

VI89

Hello all, 

So I've had a read of the NEWBIES thread and still require assistance. 

The driver parked in a McDonalds car park, left the car and received a ticket stating 'Vehicle owner/driver left site'. The attendant uploaded pictures of the car in the bay, the signage, as well as a picture of the empty driver seat. 

As the registered owner of the car, I followed the process on the NEWBIES thread. Appealing on day 26, not receiving a NTK and receiving a rejection letter with POPLA code. 

I've had a read of the POPLA decisions thread and it appears it comes down to the actual adjudicator handling the case. 

In my POPLA appeal, I will be adding the following points: 

1.       No Notice to Keeper was received therefore there is no Keeper liability. 

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

3.       No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

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

Do I still have a leg to stand on if they have a picture of the drivers seat being empty? Also as they've actually put vehicle owner will that refute my appeal as the vehicle owner? 

Many thanks in advance

B789

Seriously? What do those pictures prove? You should be appealing as the "Registered Keeper" if that is who you are. No need to say who the driver was.

How do those pictures prove that the driver left the site? How does the scummy reprobate who issued the ticket know who the driver is? Do they have a photo on file for reference? What if the driver went into McDonalds and the passenger left the site? Who would they try and get their pound of flesh from? 

Get a proper photo of the signs and show us exactly what they say. Does it actually say that if "the driver" leaves the site they are liable to pay for the privilege? How about if they write on the sign that any driver caught picking their nose must pay £100. It's just as ridiculous as the driver left the site term. It would be a nice little earner... assuming it would ever make it in front of a judge.

In any appeal, you do not say who was driving and you put the PPC to strict proof that the driver left the site. A photo of an empty seat is not proof of anything except that the car was unoccupied when the picture was taken. How on earth is that supposed to prove that the driver, whose identity is unknown, left the site?

BTW, you can be the registered keeper but not the owner or vice versa. Nothing in that contract they claim you agreed to references the "owner". They only have the details of the registered keeper from the DVLA. They do not know who the driver is. They do not know who the owner is. They can only chase the driver, assuming they know who it is. You don't have to tell them. If they have failed to issue a NtK in time then they are not going to be POFA compliant and therefore cannot transfer liability for their stupid breach to the keeper.

VI89

Thank you, I'll be appealing on the basis I'm the registered keeper. 

Would it be appropriate to state the driver and the occupants went in the McDonalds and its for UKPC to prove they didn't enter McDonalds?

Coupon-mad

Of course.  That's the first point for POPLA!

Mouse007

Well it's clear from the photo evidence that someone left the car - was the car park smaller than the car?

B789

Mouse007 said:

Well it's clear from the photo evidence that someone left the car - was the car park smaller than the car?

Technically possible. I was recently gifted 5 sq ft of land, somewhere in Cumbria which, apparently, made me a Lord of the Manor. Assuming I can actually access that 5 sq ft of land, I intend to make it into a car park and charge anyone who leaves their car unattended in my car park £100 for the privilege. I don't think there are many cars that would actually fit into 5 sq ft of land. Win win. Ker... ching!

Lord B789 (to you)

pacman_2

Any update on outcome?

Fruitcake

The £100 charge for breaching Ts and Cs is unreadable just like it is on every UKPC sign ever produced. That means it is inadequate and breaches the BPA CoP. The BPA know this but never do anything about it.

Is there a site map showing the boundary or a description of the site boundary so a motorist would know at what point they would be liable for leaving site? Of course there isn't.

Empty driver's seat in a MucD's car park means on the balance of probabilities that the driver is inside the cafe.