NCP overstay PCN

Gr1pr

The POFA issues are the winners, for the keeper, regardless of who was driving, those POFA mentions should not be in there because of the failure to comply, as coupon mad mentioned 

The POFA issues go into the nearest bin if the driver is revealed 

The issues over machine versus app are side issues, the keeper has no legal liability due to the NCP failures regarding POFA, I believe that NCP will reject the initial keeper based appeal, but Popla should uphold a keeper based appeal mainly based around POFA 

What the driver did or didn't do are secondary, NCP have no idea who was driving, keep it that way 

Leftynotreety

Much appreciated - will proceed as suggested and update in due course .

Gr1pr

Keep it simple, from the keeper, as advised by myself, Grizebeck, coupon mad and nopcns in this thread 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6523963/smart-parking-keeper-vs-driver-dilemma#latest

Coupon-mad

Is this not something POPLA would rule against NCP on regardless of the overstay length/signage etc?

100% yes. An easy win for the keeper at POPLA.

Leftynotreety

Went with the below (before seeing the link above) hoping it’s pretty much along the right lines.

I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You have used wording which under the POFA 2012, would suggest keeper liability can be established in this instance. To allege 'keeper liability' under the POFA 2012 the postal PCN must arrive by day 14 if there was no windscreen ticket (for which in this instance there was not). This NTK was sent 26 days after the alleged incident, therefore there is no ‘keeper liability’.  

If you are not referencing the POFA 2012, as it is not mentioned overtly in your NTK, then the keeper is not liable. This will be made clear to POPLA if this appeal is rejected. 

Kind Regards

Coupon-mad

That'll work! 

nopcns

The photos on the NtK are in breach of BPA rule 21.5a in that the images have been altered/cropped and do not show the date/time stamp as required. It matters not that they may be visible on the file photo. If used on the NtK as "evidential" photos, then myst be unaltered.

https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/NEW%20Redesigned%20Documents/Version91.2.2024Highlight.pdf

This has already been seen to be a winning point at POPLA case 2413353469 where Assessor Stanton noted: "I have reviewed the copy of the NTK provided by the operator and I am not satisfied that the images of the vehicle number plate on the NTK are compliant with Section 21.5a of the BPA Code of Practice.

These images are not date stamped and after seeing the full images in the case file they appear to have been digitally altered or cropped to fit on the NTK. This is especially apparent on the colour image on the NTK."

Leftynotreety

Thanks All for the valuable assistance  - a swift outcome in the end.

Dear Mrs 

Re: Parking Charge Notice Number  (Vehicle: )

 Site: Manchester Store Street

Issue date: 23/04/2024

Further to your appeal received on 01/05/2024 regarding the above Parking Charge Notice.

03/05/2024

National Car Parks Limited, Notice Processing

Your appeal has been reviewed and has been considered in conjunction with the evidence gathered by our Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras, which record your entry and exit times. Having considered the content of your letter this notice has been cancelled.

Please ensure you take into account the displayed terms and conditions of parking, to ensure you do not receive any further Parking Charge Notices.

Kind Regards

Appeals Department National Car Parks Ltd

Gr1pr

Nice one, a swift outcome due to you using the winning point of pointing out their failures, instead of dwelling on "what happened" on the day