PPS - private parking solutions - Bowman Sheriff, Bath St, Nottingham, NG1 1BZ

usernamenotfound

2/2 (Split into two because comment is too long)

4) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.
At no point have Private Parking Solutions Ltd provided any proof as to the identity of the driver of the vehicle.
In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. I am the keeper appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and 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 parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper.

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.

Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

“Understanding keeper liability:

There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

There is no reasonable presumption in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''

Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.

This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:

''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''

In summary, these points demonstrate the claim by Private Parking Solutions Ltd is invalid and should the claim continue, further action and evidence requested in this appeal is required from Private Parking Solutions Ltd.

Thank you for your time.

Kind regards.

Coupon-mad

Worth a try but remove all mention of trespass and trespassing. Those words should not appear. PPCs never allege trespass.

KeithP

Check that those links you are intending to use all work.
Hint:- the ebay one doesn't.  

usernamenotfound

@KeithP just for avoid of doubt, and being absolutely clear. I think my draft has already omitted the ebay link... The one you are referring to is in the signage section and is supposed to be right after the heigh visibility paragraph & image. If you mean this one then I have removed the relevant paragraph. 
Thanks for the heads up

fisherjim

I assume that you are attaching your own dated photographs of the signage, (or lack of) on site, if not POPLA will just side with the operator's evidence good or bad as usual?

usernamenotfound

What evidence would they have other than this measly photograph that the lurker took.
The signage is tiny and illegible, it's posted on the gate (not in front of the car), and the car is not even parked inside the compound. 
My draft makes clear that the operator must provide a photo of the signage from driver's perspective, not just a stock image that they have. Unless they have withheld photos on that date that I am unaware of, this photo alone is not enough evidence to dispute. 
Am I right or is the above regarding stock images no longer an eligible point?

fisherjim

usernamenotfound said:

What evidence would they have other than this measly photograph that the lurker took.
The signage is tiny and illegible, it's posted on the gate (not in front of the car), and the car is not even parked inside the compound. 
My draft makes clear that the operator must provide a photo of the signage from driver's perspective, not just a stock image that they have. Unless they have withheld photos on that date that I am unaware of, this photo alone is not enough evidence to dispute. 
Am I right or is the above regarding stock images no longer an eligible point?

They will show that photo POPLA will accept that and a stock image of what the PPC says is on that sign in front, you must point out that as there is no dated close up of what that sign says it is inadmissible.

The POPLA dimwit is still likely to say that "I am satisfied from the operators evidence that the signage is sufficient" it's the way they work.

It's quite clear that Safestore don't know there Rce from their elbow too what a complete shower another bunch of unhelpful Muppets.

That area could even be part of the  council boundary up to the gate, if it is private it should have hatchings to indicate that, looks like a trap to me.

usernamenotfound

fisherjim said:

usernamenotfound said:

What evidence would they have other than this measly photograph that the lurker took.
The signage is tiny and illegible, it's posted on the gate (not in front of the car), and the car is not even parked inside the compound. 
My draft makes clear that the operator must provide a photo of the signage from driver's perspective, not just a stock image that they have. Unless they have withheld photos on that date that I am unaware of, this photo alone is not enough evidence to dispute. 
Am I right or is the above regarding stock images no longer an eligible point?

They will show that photo POPLA will accept that and a stock image of what the PPC says is on that sign in front, you must point out that as there is no dated close up of what that sign says it is inadmissible.

Thanks @fisherjim
Am I to point this out during comment rebuttal, as quoted by Coupon-mad:

"AFTER SUBMITTING YOUR POPLA APPEAL:

If the PPC contests the POPLA appeal, they will put on the Portal (and maybe also send to you) their POPLA evidence pack. It is NOT from POPLA not the decision!

This is your chance to comment on the crappy evidence from the scumbags.

YOU REALLY MUST COMMENT, BUT KEEP IT VERY CONCISE TO FIT COMMENTS IN THE PORTAL."

Or, should I pre-emptively upload their photo and comment first?
I've been told in the past to be patient and let the operator's upload their own damning evidence, but from the responses on this thread, it seems that POPLA has changed for the worst over the years  

Coupon-mad

You can only include evidence at POPLA appeal stage.  Not later.

usernamenotfound

What I mean is should I include their own photo (from the lurker) in my PDF for POPLA?
Or should I wait for the operator (PPS) to send it themselves... (IF they even bother to rebut in the first place)

Sorry for any confusion