One Parking Solution - Private car park ticket

Gr1pr

You stated that a new letter arrived recently, which you appealed, which was rejected, we have not seen that letter at all, only the windscreen PCNs placed on the vehicle, we have not seen the permit nor any paperwork you signed about using the supplied permit, or any limitations 

We have not seen what is mentioned about parking in your tenancy agreement, or in the agreement that your landlord has either, so we are flying blind and trying to cover all the usual bases, but tenancy PCNs tend to be complicated matters, with various contracts involved 

You have 33 days from the issue date on the initial appeal rejection to appeal to Popla online , using the supplied POPLA code 

When OPS submit their evidence pack to Popla, a copy of the NTK PCN letter will be included, plus signs too

Fruitcake

Amburger said:

Umkomaas said:

Amburger said:

Coupon-mad said:

Coupon-mad said:

He needs to be robust and pushy.  They are clamper-mentality people (no consumer care) if you read the Trustpilot link...did you see? ...but he can swap the template sentence about pay & display for a more relevant section that says this: 

Your own online photos show the permit was displayed.  You and your fellow ex-clamper ilk are unwelcome at the site and do nothing useful for residents & visitors. If you fail to cancel now, I will put you to the expense of POPLA and will not be paying unless a Judge tells me to.  Your choice; and by the time you get past POPLA (if you scrape past it with your weak photos) the DLUHC will have banned the fake added DRA fee as part of the new regulations, so you are going to lose money on this case, regardless.  I invite you to cancel it now.

Yep : POPLA as I said above.

No paying even if you lose at POPLA.

From reading the newbies forum, it's advised that I send a lengthy message to POPLA, is this right? I am rubbish at coming up with things to say so I'm frantically searching the forums at the moment for something I can use. :')

The NEWBIES FAQ Announcement, third post, provides almost everything you need. Near-template appeal paragraphs/points which you can adapt to match your circumstances. 

This is a standard checklist, as often posted by forum stalwart @Fruitcake.  Key points to include in any POPLA appeal:

1) Non-PoFA compliant NTK/NTH (if appropriate)
2) Not the driver/not the person who may be liable for the charge (if non-PoFA)
3) Not the landowner/ No landowner contract
4) No standing to issue charges in their own name
5) Inadequate signage
6) BPA CoP failures (if appropriate)

I've been reading through it but this sort of thing goes straight over my head 
I'm doing this on behalf of my partner and I can see that he is losing his patience with it but I'm stubborn and refuse to let him pay!

We've not received a NTK as of yet as the DVLA had the wrong address which has been updated now.
We didn't name a driver.
We are renting this property and the landlord provided this permit for us.
As far as I know, no standing issue charges are in his name.
There are lots of signs but I've never noticed them before (I don't drive that's probably why). I will take images when I'm next down there as I believe the text is quite small.

Do we have a time limit to appeal this? I want to make sure I take the time to get this right

You misunderstand. "No standing to issue charges in their own name" refers to the PPC. It means they have no standing (no right) to issue charges (to the motorist)  because they are not the landowner, and do not have a contract that permits them to issue charges to the motorist where the motorist has an existing right to park in their own demised space/car park as per their lease/AST/property ownership/rental agreement.
They have no standing to take away or replace or amend any rights that the resident already has because the motorist's property agreement has primacy of contract over anything a third party unregulated private parking company pretends to have. To do so would be a derogation of grant.

What a resident's property agreement does not say is just as important, as does the resident's right to quiet enjoyment, which is a standard clause in most such property agreements.

Coupon-mad

You have had a NTK. It was the thing you appealed.  The letter you talked about.

Amburger

Gr1pr said:

You stated that a new letter arrived recently, which you appealed, which was rejected, we have not seen that letter at all, only the windscreen PCNs placed on the vehicle, we have not seen the permit nor any paperwork you signed about using the supplied permit, or any limitations 

We have not seen what is mentioned about parking in your tenancy agreement, or in the agreement that your landlord has either, so we are flying blind and trying to cover all the usual bases, but tenancy PCNs tend to be complicated matters, with various contracts involved 

You have 33 days from the issue date on the initial appeal rejection to appeal to Popla online , using the supplied POPLA code 

When OPS submit their evidence pack to Popla, a copy of the NTK PCN letter will be included, plus signs too

We received an email on the 22/05/24 saying the following:

''This appeal has been considered in conjunction with the evidence gathered by the parking attendant at the time of the event

and any relevant mitigating circumstances you have supplied with your appeal.

We are writing to inform you that your appeal has been unsuccessful. Your vehicle was not parked in

accordance with the terms and conditions on site, and you have not provided sufficient evidence to show

otherwise.

At the time your vehicle was observed, your permit was not fully and clearly on display in the front

windscreen. This means the officer cannot determine if your vehicle is authorised to park on site which is

a contravention of the terms and conditions.

We acknowledge the contents of your appeal however this does not exempt you from the terms and

conditions of the site. As you are unable/unwilling to advise us of the drivers name, the keeper of the

vehicle becomes liable as it is safe to assume that as the keeper would have access to either drive the

vehicle or give your authority to the driver.''

My tenancy only mentions returning the permit once we end the tenancy but no specific rules or regulations regarding the car park itself.

Amburger

Fruitcake said:

You misunderstand. "No standing to issue charges in their own name" refers to the PPC. It means they have no standing (no right) to issue charges (to the motorist)  because they are not the landowner, and do not have a contract that permits them to issue charges to the motorist where the motorist has an existing right to park in their own demised space/car park as per their lease/AST/property ownership/rental agreement.
They have no standing to take away or replace or amend any rights that the resident already has because the motorist's property agreement has primacy of contract over anything a third party unregulated private parking company pretends to have. To do so would be a derogation of grant.

What a resident's property agreement does not say is just as important, as does the resident's right to quiet enjoyment, which is a standard clause in most such property agreements.

Oh right I see. The tenancy itself only states to return the permit at the end of tenancy.

Gr1pr

So as we haven't seen those pictures I mentioned yet, does that rejection contain the Popla code. ?  Or not. ?  You never said 

As for the tenancy agreement, I expect that it says a lot more than just the one sentence above 

Amburger

Gr1pr said:

So as we haven't seen those pictures I mentioned yet, does that rejection contain the Popla code. ?  Or not. ?  You never said 

As for the tenancy agreement, I expect that it says a lot more than just the one sentence above 

It does contain a code to appeal with POPLA.
I forgot to save the images they submitted as evidence and I’m unable to get them back but I guess I’ll have access again once I make the appeal with POPLA and they submit them. 

I searched the tenancy for anything relating to permits, parking, private car park etc and couldn’t find anything. 

Bazarius

I note from your  earlier comment that the permit was “slightly obscured “ .  Do you think the attendant’s photos were taken in such angles to suit the issuance of the PCN ? When in reality all the details on the permit  could easily been visible if they had bothered to turn their neck a bit ? 

I assisted a motorist a couple of years ago against an allegation the driver had failed display a pay and display ticket . It could be seen through the shaded part of  the  windscreen in their photos . The attendant took 14 photos in such angles avoiding close up of the dashboard , stuck  the pcn onto the wing mirror arm , this rang alarm bells that it must be a ghost ticketing scam. 

I told the Defendant to reconstruct the same and place a same sized “ ticket “ in exactly the same place as shown . Do a video walk round in real life view . Guess what we found? .  It was clearly  visible and properly displayed on the dashboard as required. 

Worth trying the same ? 

Coupon-mad

Amburger said:

Gr1pr said:

So as we haven't seen those pictures I mentioned yet, does that rejection contain the Popla code. ?  Or not. ?  You never said 

As for the tenancy agreement, I expect that it says a lot more than just the one sentence above 

It does contain a code to appeal with POPLA.
I forgot to save the images they submitted as evidence and I’m unable to get them back but I guess I’ll have access again once I make the appeal with POPLA and they submit them.  

When you log in as if to pay, you can always see all the photos OPS hold (obviously no paying).

Amburger

Bazarius said:

I note from your  earlier comment that the permit was “slightly obscured “ .  Do you think the attendant’s photos were taken in such angles to suit the issuance of the PCN ? When in reality all the details on the permit  could easily been visible if they had bothered to turn their neck a bit ? 

I assisted a motorist a couple of years ago against an allegation the driver had failed display a pay and display ticket . It could be seen through the shaded part of  the  windscreen in their photos . The attendant took 14 photos in such angles avoiding close up of the dashboard , stuck  the pcn onto the wing mirror arm , this rang alarm bells that it must be a ghost ticketing scam. 

I told the Defendant to reconstruct the same and place a same sized “ ticket “ in exactly the same place as shown . Do a video walk round in real life view . Guess what we found? .  It was clearly  visible and properly displayed on the dashboard as required. 

Worth trying the same ? 

May be a little tricky now as we've added the permit pocket thing to the window.

These are the 'evidence' images:


These are the images we took ourselves when we received a warning:

Yo