POPLA appeal support re Premier Park PCN

Coupon-mad

Just comment CONCISELY on the two points:

- They didn't check for or identify the keying error which the appellant has spotted immediately on the payment log (not seen until POPLA stage but the operator had this data all along).  It does in fact show a payment for the registration number, however the last 2 digits appear to be missing. This should have bern noticed by the mandatory human checks of data and is deemed a major 'keying error'.  It was in the operator's BPA requirements to check to eliminate such a likelihood (especially when the appellant alerted them that payment was made) and yet they failed to offer the mandatory £20 major keying error settlement.

- the NTK was non-POFA as stated in the appeal, so the keeper can't be held liable.

Piggl8

Coupon-mad said:

Just comment CONCISELY on the two points:

- They didn't check for or identify the keying error which the appellant has spotted immediately on the payment log (not seen until POPLA stage but the operator had this data all along).  It does in fact show a payment for the registration number, however the last 2 digits appear to be missing. This should have bern noticed by the mandatory human checks of data and is deemed a major 'keying error'.  It was in the operator's BPA requirements to check to eliminate such a likelihood (especially when the appellant alerted them that payment was made) and yet they failed to offer the mandatory £20 major keying error settlement.

- the NTK was non-POFA as stated in the appeal, so the keeper can't be held liable.

Thank you Coupon-mad.

I have now drafted this - let me know if ok (it's just under 2000 characters as I believe the limit to be, and I'm considering taking the italics bits out entirely);

1.      The NTK was sent 18 days after the event. Under POFA it should have been within 14 days, and while PP might have meant to say so, the letter does not state they will hold the keeper liable for payment or that they intend to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper under POFA. It states: “we have the right to recover the parking charge amount… from the driver of the vehicle”.  How can it be valid if they are not transparent in their intention to use or even quote the relevant legislation. The letter does ask for the keeper to disclose the name of the driver, and I am exercising my right not to do so. Therefore NO keeper liability has been established.

2.      PP have the payment log which shows a payment was made for the period in question - see the third line from the bottom, registration ‘XXXX X’, the last 2 characters are missing. This clearly shows intent on the drivers’ part to comply. The initial appeal asked for the payment log, in an attempt to bring this to light and come to a resolution. PP were able to but chose not to perform a 'fuzzy search' (a search to provide approximate matches, as their system provides a function for - see PP’s search result screenshot top right), instead choosing to perform an exact search. PP appear not to have conducted any due diligence before issuing the PCN, following the initial appeal nor during this appeal. Had they done so, the keying error would have been found. Under BPA rules this would be considered a major keying error, though I believe this fits more accurately with the minor keying error description "where the correct registration is still recognisable". PP have not identified this nor offered a reduced fee. To still pursue the driver for £100 is punitive. Therefore under BPA and POPLAs own guidance, the PCN should be cancelled entirely.

3.      Under Companies Act 2006 section 44 states there must be two authorised signatures from both parties for a contract to be executed. Therefore the contract is invalid.

Coupon-mad

Good!  I'd remove this:

"while PP might have meant to say so,"

Piggl8

Coupon-mad said:

Good!  I'd remove this:

"while PP might have meant to say so,"

Will do, thank you.

Were the bits in italics OK to leave in? 

I have until Tuesday to respond, but am looking to do it by Monday latest.

Coupon-mad

Yep looked good.  

Piggl8

Coupon-mad said:

Yep looked good.  

You won't be surprised, but after what feels like a very long wait, Popla has finally reviewed my appeal and found in my favour.

Yay!

They decided that the NTK did not meet requirements for several reasons. As usual they don't bother to look at the rest of it after that, but I really think even if it had been compliant, that I would also have won on the unidentified (ignored) keying error.

Anyway, I am very happy with that. 

Thank you for your guidance

Coupon-mad

Piggl8 said:

Coupon-mad said:

Yep looked good.  

You won't be surprised, but after what feels like a very long wait, Popla has finally reviewed my appeal and found in my favour.

Yay!

They decided that the NTK did not meet requirements for several reasons. As usual they don't bother to look at the rest of it after that, but I really think even if it had been compliant, that I would also have won on the unidentified (ignored) keying error.

Anyway, I am very happy with that. 

Thank you for your guidance

Yay!

Please can you add it to POPLA Decisions, top of the forum?  But add ten paragraph breaks please, don't post POPLA's wall of text there!  Break it up and state which PPC you beat, and link to this thread for newbies to read.