ParkingEye - How Long To Issue POPLA Code?

Umkomaas

Yep, out on two counts - dates and (no) PoFA warning. 

Use blue text initial appeal template from NEWBIES FAQ Announcement, first post, and add the following paragraph:

'As your Parking Charge Notice does not comply with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4), you are, in law, unable to hold the registered keeper of the vehicle liable for the parking charge; I suggest therefore you contact the driver. As there is no legal requirement placed on the registered keeper to identify the driver, I will not be doing so.'

Skewered!

rosborne

Thanks everybody - thought so.

We've already "wasted" the initial appeal as we hadn't clicked it was non-POFA compliant at the time so just appealed on poor signage (which it is, but ParkingEye disagree unsurprisingly). However - we were extremely careful not to share who was driving.

I've therefore put together a lengthy appeal based on this example: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/78118538/#Comment_78118538

If somebody doesn't mind, I'll post up our appeal before I send it off, just in case I've missed anything out. It's very similar to the above which won with POPLA (but ours now needs a little editing now I can see they are also out on dates) so hopefully there shouldn't be much wrong.

rosborne

Right - here's the appeal I intend to send over to POPLA if anybody is kind enough to give it a once over before I send it.

The key bit is point I (no keeper liability) where I outline the lack of keeper liability / POFA and the invalid dates. The rest is templated stuff that I've included here purely incase I've missed any other key sections.

As noted earlier - this is based off the linked example above, which won at POPLA so hopefully it shouldn't need much / any changes.

Thanks everyone - I'll check back in once we get a result to confirm the outcome.

Grizebeck

All you need is the bit on keeper liability

rosborne

ok - so the operator still wants to argue that my other half should pay. Not surprising...

Can somebody please give my response to their evidence pack (that was submitted today) a quick check over please? It fits within what is now a 10000 character limit. Thanks:

-----------

I would like to address 1 specific point in the operator evidence supplied.

The operator has stated the following in their evidence: 

"Please be advised, this Parking Charge was not issued under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As such, the appellant’s comments regarding the Parking Charge Notice being issued incorrectly are not relevant in the case."

I draw your attention to the following extract from point II of my appeal, which was made as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle:

"In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

Where a charge is aimed only at a driver, no other party can be told to pay. As there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a POFA-compliant NTK.

As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

The burden of proof rests with the Operator, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot."

Given the operator has openly stated in their evidence that they are no using POFA in this case, and I continue to exercise my right as Keeper not to name the driver, I believe this to be a valid appeal as the operator has been unable to demonstrate any proof of who the driver of the vehicle was on this day.

Gr1pr

Also add a line that the registered keeper and apellant was definitely not the driver. ( But only if 100% true. )

rosborne

Thanks - I've sent that off based on this feedback. Now we just have to wait the 2-4 weeks for POPLA to make their final decision.

It seems a pretty clear cut one to me given Parkingeye have openly admitted they're not using POFA, but we'll see what they decide...

rosborne

A quick update to say thanks for all the help. We finally got the response back (seems there is a hefty delay as it took 8 weeks to respond rather than the 2-4 weeks originally estimated) and POPLA have allowed our appeal.

I'll add the outcome to the POPLA appeal thread for future reference.

Coupon-mad

Very good news!