POPLA appeal good enough?

Coupon-mad

No signs on Google StreetView?

Umkomaas

I agree with @Coupon-mad, if the other NtK was similarly worded (and within the 14 day requirement), then my suggested POPLA appeal point is rather negated. 

fisherjim

PPC's always bleat on about multiple clear signage on site but the idiots that write their template rejection letters have absolutely no idea what so ever and I doubt have even been to the site.

It's up to you to prove otherwise, and also rubbish their stock photos they inevitably submit.

With their blanket and ever increasing use of ANPR instead of foot patrols, sites are now rarely checked maintained or updated, and they cannot submit signage from the day of the even as no staff visit the site.

GrannyKate

I had a look for you on Google but the signs cannot be seen in the latest pictures from October 2021.  What I guess are the detailed signs all face into the car park and there are none out on the entrance road (Farthing Grove).  Small sign as you go in to parking area and then a few others in the trees.  Google also brings up successful appeals for this car park on the MSE board from a few years ago. Of course signs may have been updated since then.  I don't know the area other than I always get lost in Milton Keynes.

B789

Interestingly, the first PCN failed PoFA on dates. The second one (under discussion) is PoFA compliant on dates (just). As the appeal shows that the appellant was the driver, even though they deny having ticked that box, it will need highlighting to POPLA that the default, if nothing is entered, needs proving by the PPC that that is not the case.

bjazzy

Really helpful insights
Few things I have noted
A) Include in the appeal the onus on PPC to prove driver. Any drafts out there which I can refer?
Update photos with timestamps
C)Remove PoFA Grounds as NTK is compliant.

Any views on Data protection and GDPR? Does the statement on the back of the reminder and NTK cover there liability? Doesn't look like it to me
TIA

B789

Don't leave out the PoFA bit as the actual statement is not PoFA compliant. For starters, PoFA 9.2(e) is not adhered to. The NtK fails to "invite" the keeper to blah, blah, blah.

Schedule 4 2(2) and 2(3) of PoFA relating to "adequate notice" are points you can use.

7(2)(b) also is not adhered to. Nowhere on the NtK does it actually state what the actual breach is. It only states that the vehicle was 2:03 on site without stating what the maximum allowed time was. Just stating that "the vehicle exceeded the maximum stay prominently displayed on the signage displayed at the site" doesn't cut it.

The NtK only has to fail on a single point in PoFA for the RK not to be held liable.

Have a read of PoFA and see what else you can find:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted 

bjazzy

B789 said:

Don't leave out the PoFA bit as the actual statement is not PoFA compliant. For starters, PoFA 9.2(e) is not adhered to. The NtK fails to "invite" the keeper to blah, blah, blah.

Schedule 4 2(2) and 2(3) of PoFA relating to "adequate notice" are points you can use.

7(2)(b) also is not adhered to. Nowhere on the NtK does it actually state what the actual breach is. It only states that the vehicle was 2:03 on site without stating what the maximum allowed time was. Just stating that "the vehicle exceeded the maximum stay prominently displayed on the signage displayed at the site" doesn't cut it.

The NtK only has to fail on a single point in PoFA for the RK not to be held liable.

Have a read of PoFA and see what else you can find:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted 

Why does the NTK seems PoFA non complaint with 9.2(e)? The language used is "As we do not know the driver's name or current postal address, if you were not the driver at the time, you should tell us the name and current postal address of the driver and pass this to them"

Kindly note the words in bold & underline  I see these bold words as causing the non compliance. Is my understanding correct?

9.2(e) text says "state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—

(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or

(ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;"

bjazzy

B789 said:

Don't leave out the PoFA bit as the actual statement is not PoFA compliant. For starters, PoFA 9.2(e) is not adhered to. The NtK fails to "invite" the keeper to blah, blah, blah.

Schedule 4 2(2) and 2(3) of PoFA relating to "adequate notice" are points you can use.

7(2)(b) also is not adhered to. Nowhere on the NtK does it actually state what the actual breach is. It only states that the vehicle was 2:03 on site without stating what the maximum allowed time was. Just stating that "the vehicle exceeded the maximum stay prominently displayed on the signage displayed at the site" doesn't cut it.

The NtK only has to fail on a single point in PoFA for the RK not to be held liable.

Have a read of PoFA and see what else you can find:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted 

Also, you are referring to 7(2)(b) which relates to notice to driver.Did you mean 9(2)(b) as para 7 is for driver and i have not acknolwedged being the driver.

I shall include in the appeal the presumption Highview has made in its response as the keeper being the driver and that i require them to prove .

Le_Kirk

bjazzy said:

Why does the NTK seems PoFA non complaint with 9.2(e)? The language used is "As we do not know the driver's name or current postal address, if you were not the driver at the time, you should tell us the name and current postal address of the driver and pass this to them"

9.2(e) text says "state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—

Spot the difference!