One Parking Solution - Private car park ticket

Amburger

Coupon-mad said:

"However, a compliant notice to keeper was served via electronic means on the 24th of May 2024"

Tell POPLA that was impossible because the wrong address appears on the NTK shown and they CANNOT have issued a postal NTK to the keeper 'by electronic means' and would be unable to evidence that (because they didn't). 


"Not seeking keeper liability as the appellant is clearly the driver."

Point that sentence out to POPLA and deny that the appellant 'is clearly the driver' which OPS cannot just assume.

UNLESS YOUR FIST APPEAL TOLD THEM YOU PARKED THE CAR....? Did it?

Then ALSO remind POPLA of this:

You can see the person taking the first photo must have crouched down or lowered their phone when standing (oddly) at the front of the car (indeed at the end of the bonnet), to maximise the shaded area to be in the foreground in order to create the illusion that 'Bay 33' could not be read on the permit.

There is no angle taken from the normal/reasonable viewpoint of the eyes of the ticketer standing at the driver's side of the car and looking down at it!  The wider views show beyond doubt that there was plenty of room between the black & blue cars to stand on the driver's side and look at the permit.

Obviously, even if this is (likely) lost at POPLA you won't be paying!

We have not mentioned who the driver is at all. The part you quoted I added as part of my appeal to POPLA. It is odd how the original PCN states we did not have a permit displaying correctly but in the POPLA response we apparently did not have one at all! It's nonsense

Coupon-mad

The part you quoted I added as part of my appeal to POPLA. 

Yes I realise that you would have (good), but I'm saying reiterate that main point now in some short comments.

Add this in conclusion to the Comments:

"It is odd how the original PCN states we "did not have a permit displaying correctly" but in the POPLA response we apparently "did not have one at all". It's nonsense"

Amburger

Coupon-mad said:

The part you quoted I added as part of my appeal to POPLA. 

Yes I realise that you would have (good), but I'm saying reiterate that main point now in some short comments.

Add this in conclusion to the Comments:

"It is odd how the original PCN states we "did not have a permit displaying correctly" but in the POPLA response we apparently "did not have one at all". It's nonsense"

This is what I have written so far, can't think of anything else to add.

The notice suggests a permit was displayed incorrectly, yet you are also stating that the vehicle was parked in an incorrect bay. This contradiction implies the permit was visible which negates the claim of improper display.

I have not received the Notice to Keeper (NTK) due to an incorrect address being listed on the document. It is my understanding that a postal NTK cannot be issued electronically, and as such, there would be no evidence of its issuance to me as keeper.

I would like to remind you that the identification of a driver in any legal matter requires substantial evidence. Assumptions cannot replace factual proof, especially in cases concerning parking fines. We must adhere to due process and ensure that any allegations are supported by credible information.

Coupon-mad

It's not "you".  OPS don't see your comments.

You are writing to the POPLA Assessor.

Please don't call an OPS demand a 'fine'.  It is nothing of the sort and you won't be paying it.