Eurocarpark - Disabled Badge - POPLA Appeal

Kazaa

So the first sentence will simply say "I wish to appeal on the following grounds: "

Kazaa

appreciate the help all, i will finalise and submit it tomorrow

Kazaa

Ok so POPLA received a evidence pack from Eurocarparks containing the following :--

Please find enclosed the evidence pack:
1. (B) Case Summary and Rules/Conditions
2. (C) Copy of Parking Charge Notice XXXXXX
Original front copy was placed on the vehicle on the date of issue.
3. (D) Registered Keeper Details and Liability Trail
4. (E i) Original representation received from XXXXX
5. (E ii) ECP Notice of Rejection
6. (G) ECP response to the POPLA appeal logged by XXXX
7. (F) Signage Location Plan and images of Car Park

Any of the above i should post here for review? I have 7 days to respond

Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad said:

Coupon-mad said:

That Ntk is missing some POFA paragraph 8 wording so as long as you only appealed as the keeper, that wins it.

All except this as there never was anything set by paragraph 10.  It's a nullity. 
(7)When the notice is given it must be accompanied by any evidence prescribed under paragraph 10

We already discussed (above) that it's non-POFA In wording, so the date is irrelevant.  'Non-POFA' wording means there can be no keeper liability anyway.

Repeat the above winning point.

Kazaa

Ok will copy paste section 1 from the POPLA appeal, only thing i noticed is that under bullet point 2, Eurocarparks have shown both the Parking Charge Notice (windscreen notice) and the NTK.

The windscreen PCN does have the discount whilst the NTK does not.
In addition the Windscreen PCN doesnt allow to invite the keeper to identiy the driver but the NTK does.

So from a POFA perspective neither are compliant unless both are taken into consideration together.

@Coupon-mad is this quite common or both should be expected on PCN and NTK.

Coupon-mad

The windscreen PCN does have the discount whilst the NTK does not.
In addition the Windscreen PCN doesnt allow to invite the keeper to identiy the driver but the NTK does.

Neither of those are valid points.

That's not why your NTK is non-POFA.

fisherjim

A "windscreen PCN" is a notice to driver, think about it!

Kazaa

@Coupon-mad

They were the reasons for the NTK being non-POFA which put in the POPLA appeal? 
Am i missing something?

Coupon-mad

Kazaa said:

@Coupon-mad

They were the reasons for the NTK being non-POFA which put in the POPLA appeal? 
Am i missing something?

Neither are correct. Both are in fact wrong.

Don't say that!

In fact, I just looked at your POPLA appeal and that ISN'T what you said. You got it right as to what's missing from para 8 of POFA:

1)  The Notice to Keeper does not comply with sub-paragraph 8 point 2 (e & g) and therefore is not POFA compliant
Under schedule 4, paragraph 4 of the POFA, an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle if certain conditions are met as stated in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 & 12. EuroCarParks Ltd have failed to fulfil the conditions which state that the keeper must be served with a compliant NTK in accordance with paragraph 8, which stipulates a mandatory process if driver is not identified as follows:-
“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;

Go read the most recent ECP win reported in 'POPLA Decisions', top of the forum, and copy and paste the Assessor's rationale about why an ECP NTK is not compliant.  Except in your case you need to refer to paragraph 8 and not paragraph 9, of course. Basically repeat what your POPLA appeal point 1 said!

Kazaa

Ok got it, so my response will be :--

As the driver of the vehicle has not been identified, the operator has issued the NTK directly to the keeper so must follow Paragrah 8 of POFA 2012.
The Notice to Keeper does not comply with sub-paragraph 8 point 2 (e & g) and therefore is not POFA compliant
Under schedule 4, paragraph 4 of the POFA, an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle if certain conditions are met as stated in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 & 12. EuroCarParks Ltd have failed to fulfil the conditions which state that the keeper must be served with a compliant NTK in accordance with paragraph 8, which stipulates a mandatory process if driver is not identified as follows:-
“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;
g) inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available;