Missing half my VRN on letter

Khaggis

Hi guys. I've received a ticket for overstaying at McDonald's which I'm currently in the process of trying to get cancelled (due to being a paying customer).

I'm also drafting my standard appeal letter to the company (MET) as a backup, which has got me out of tickets before thanks to the help of the amazing people on this forum. 
However, I've had an interesting one with this, that I'm just wondering may be grounds for them cancelling on itself. On the notice to keeper, the "exit" photo is missing half of the VRN from there, and not only that, in the black box above it says it's a completely different brand of car from what was entered (Renault Vs BMW).

 I've attached a redacted photo for you guys to see, but was wondering your take on this before I draft up my appeal. Cheers in advance. 

Gr1pr

Usual template appeal, pointing out that the supplied pictures are of 2 different vehicles, but ensure that your appeal is done around day 12 of the first 14 days, so any amended new NTK PCN replacement letter would fail POFA at the very least 

Or they may cancel 

No blabbing about who was driving, so only a basic keeper appeal with the up yours addition ( and a link to Specsavers, lol,  sic . )

Umkomaas

What happened next?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6294319/popla-denied-appeal#latest

We do find feedback very helpful. If we don't know what works, there's little point in us spending so much time here.

Khaggis

here is the *redacted* letter i have drafted, does this look ok?

Dear Sirs,

 

I have just received your Notice to Keeper *redacted* for vehicle VRN *redacted*

 

There is no legal requirement to name the driver at the time and I will not be doing so.

Additionally, the evidence in the Notice to Keeper you have provided, is missing half of the VRN in the photo, and states that the brand of vehicle is a BMW, this is different to the vehicle in your Notice to Keeper (Renault) and therefore is not enough evidence to prove without unreasonable doubt that it is the same vehicle in question.

 

My challenge is based on:

a) the assertion that your parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss to yourself or the landowner when on a free car park. The driver of the vehicle also made purchases while inside the restaurant, and redacted receipts can and will be provided proving that the driver was a genuine customer.

 

b) The on-site signage is insufficient. The signage is posted on small signs at inappropriate placements. The driver of the vehicle would not be able to safely read the signs terms - thus, entering an agreement contract, due to the positioning of the signs next to a busy roadway, this applies while both in and out of the vehicle.

 

c) The evidence in the Notice to keeper you have provided, does not show a full, matching VRN in the photo evidence, alongside identifying them as two completely different vehicles, and therefore cannot prove without unreasonable doubt that it is the same vehicle in question.

 

Under these circumstances, I reserve my right not to identify the driver and ask that you cancel the PCN immediately or, if you refuse to do so, send me a POPLA code in order that I may make my representations there. I must inform you that I may claim my expenses from you and my time at the court rate of £25.80 per hour. The expenses I may claim are not exhaustive but may include the cost of stamps, envelopes, travel expenses, legal fees, etc. By continuing to pursue me you agree to pay these costs when I prevail.

Furthermore, if you pursue the matter against me as registered keeper when you have no lawful excuse and cannot rely on 'keeper liability' at all in this instance, you will be guilty of harassment which is another specific breach of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

I am making representations to *redacted* to have the penalty charge revoked. Complaints are also being prepared to submit to the BPA and DVLA.

I do not expect to hear from you again, or your debt collectors, except to confirm that no further action will be taken on this matter and my personal details have been removed from your records.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

Khaggis

Khaggis

Umkomaas said:

What happened next?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6294319/popla-denied-appeal#latest

We do find feedback very helpful. If we don't know what works, there's little point in us spending so much time here.

Hey Umkomaas.

Re: that particular incident, I've still never heard back from parking eye. I darent log in and check if the claim is still live in case they get notified about it. it's now been 3 years so i'm hoping the dust has settled. I am aware they have up to 6 years to claim it back, but like what you said before, the fact that they have not done so makes me think theres a reason for that. so currently the matter is still unsettled.

Umkomaas

You're one of many million PE are chasing. I don't think a quick look-see at your parking charge on their website is going to spark off any sirens screaming over in Chorley!

Khaggis

Umkomaas said:

You're one of many million PE are chasing. I don't think a quick look-see at your parking charge on their website is going to spark off any sirens screaming over in Chorley!

Well I had a look, it appears to still be outstanding, but i;m going to let sleeping dogs lie.

Did you have a look at that draft letter i have written for the current one, does it look ok?

Umkomaas

Khaggis said:

Umkomaas said:

You're one of many million PE are chasing. I don't think a quick look-see at your parking charge on their website is going to spark off any sirens screaming over in Chorley!

Well I had a look, it appears to still be outstanding, but i;m going to let sleeping dogs lie.

Did you have a look at that draft letter i have written for the current one, does it look ok?

Looks to be pressing the right buttons. I'd emphasise your intention to report this to the DVLA/BPA.  But you'll know that PPCs rarely read an appeal. Receiving one, regardless of content, automatically generates a rejection. 

Your real focus, should that happen, is to escalate your threat to report them to DVLA/BPA. 

Khaggis

Umkomaas said:

Khaggis said:

Umkomaas said:

You're one of many million PE are chasing. I don't think a quick look-see at your parking charge on their website is going to spark off any sirens screaming over in Chorley!

Well I had a look, it appears to still be outstanding, but i;m going to let sleeping dogs lie.

Did you have a look at that draft letter i have written for the current one, does it look ok?

Looks to be pressing the right buttons. I'd emphasise your intention to report this to the DVLA/BPA.  But you'll know that PPCs rarely read an appeal. Receiving one, regardless of content, automatically generates a rejection. 

Your real focus, should that happen, is to escalate your threat to report them to DVLA/BPA. 

How would you suggest I word that exactly? Apologies that's about as extreme as I usually get 😅

Gr1pr

Just threaten to report them to the BPA/DVLA/ICO , no need for long explanations , if they had no valid reason to Access your data then their checks should have prevented it, but instead your eagle eyes spotted their errors 

Vans obscuring the full registration etc are a daily occurrence, hence why ANPR is not reliable 

Change the word Penalty to Parking, NET don't issue penalties 

I don't think that the not a genuine etc section applies here, we generally stopped using that topic 9 years ago 

LDast

That "appeal" is a wasted effort. MET are going to reject no matter what. Keep it simple at this stage and wait for the rejection and a POPLA code where this should be put to bed and have a bit of fun at their expense at the same time.

A simple appeal along these lines should get the POPLA code issued:

I am the registered keeper. Your NtK shows no evidence that the keepers vehicle is the same one that entered the car park as the one that exited. Therefore, there's no evidence of a period of parking. 

As a matter of fact and law, MET will be well aware that they cannot use the PoFA provisions to hold the keeper liable because of the failure of your ANPR system to identify the vehicle correctly and establish a period of parking. As your embarrassing excuse of an NtK has failed to identify the period of parking, you have failed to fully comply with the requirements of PoFA 2012 and therefore cannot transfer liability from the driver to the keeper.

The registered keeper cannot be presumed to have been, nor pursued as the driver under some twisted  interpretation of the law of agency.  As the keeper, I am under no legal obligation to identify the driver and I shall not be doing so.

Your choice. Cancel the PCN or send me a POPLA code. MET have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN or confirm your intellectual malnourishment and contest my appeal to POPLA where you will undoubtedly waste your money for an assessment of METs failures.