Time of alleged breach per the NtD differs on Notice to keeper.

Coupon-mad

Yes attach those 3 things.

I saw a typo in the first line on the page after the first pic: 'drive' should be 'driver'.

I think your point about the bay should be a separate point. Looks like the end space doesn't it?!

Also where you quote the POFA, also quote 7(2)(f) and remind POPLA that this is one of the specific pieces of information from a NTD that must be repeated in a NTK issued under paragraph 8 of Schedule 4:

7. (2)The notice must—

(f) specify the time when the notice is given and the date.

Pastafarian_fsm

Great, thanks. Included your suggestions and added the entrance signage image I neglected to add in the previous draft.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TO9HFzvzCle3FkjX2jNfKc3rdt4nPF0R/view?usp=drive_link

Coupon-mad

Looks like a work of art!

I see what you mean about the hatched lines - the opposite end of that same run of bays has a triangular hatched area. Why not here?!

Pastafarian_fsm

Would you say it is good enough to send to POPLA?

Should I post back with the result once POPLA decide? Is that useful for other people that wish to submit POPLA appeals?

Coupon-mad

Yes and yes ... that's why we have an entire sticky thread for POPLA outcomes!

Pastafarian_fsm

Magic, I shall get it off and await a response. Thanks so much for the help with this. It is genuinely appreciated.

Pastafarian_fsm

Hi all,

So the Carpark Operator responded to the POPLA appeal:

"Operator Case Summary

This PCN was issued for ‘Non Designated Bay.’ Upon checks being make to this vehicle it was found to be parked outside of the realms of a designated bay. Salford University have a strict car parking policy that all users are deemed to agree to when parking on site. This is for Health and Safety reasons and to ensure traffic flow. The vehicle is parked at the end of a run of bays, as there is no solid white line to the passenger side of the vehicle this is NOT a bay. In the single code of practice 2.21 a Parking Bay is defined as-‘’space defined by markings and/or materials that indicate where a vehicle is permitted to park.’’ As this road marking was not present that indicates it is not a bay. The terms and conditions of the car park are displayed throughout the site on SEVERAL large and prominent, BPA audited signs, also passing an entrance sign to access the car park. These signs exceed minimum size. The terms and conditions had been broken and therefore the PCN was issued. The conditions of parking are printed on the signage and explained not only in the main contravention but the terms and conditions also. The University website also explains this. There was no observation period required as this is not allowed at any time, for any length of time. The evidential photos are dated and timed which proves attendance. You can see from the photos, and site photos that the whole car park is lined. This vehicle was parked outside of these marked bays. Having a payment session gives you the right to hunt for a space, it does not allow you to park outside of a bay. Alternative parking should have been sought in one of the other 7 car parks which belong to university. The PCN was issued in the form of a NTD (Notice to Driver) which was ignored, therefore on day 29 a NTK(Notice to Keeper) was sent and the appeal made by the Keeper. An example of the liability from has been included. The NTK does NOT Have to repeat the NTD information- it is a different document altogether. They state they could not make an appeal as the keeper, however have done so and clear instructions on how to appeal are printed on page 2 of the NTK. They flat out refuse to name the driver despite several requests therefore PoFA comes into play and the responsibility passes to the keeper. We made every effort possible to confirm the driver who was never named. As they chose to go to POPLA the reduced rate was no longer available. If they wished to pay the reduced the they should take this up with the driver of the vehicle whom they refuse to name as they were given the opportunity to pay the reduced rate and ignored the PCN. Procedure has been followed to the letter. They state our NTK does not meet PoFA requirements, however as it is Audited by the BPA it does, and we would not be allowed to operate if it didn’t. The signage is also audited and we hold the Park Mark for this car park. The owner of the land has the right to allow people to park where they so wish, or indeed do not and they choose not to allow vehicles to park outside of a bay- this is for Safety reasons and forms part of the Car Parking Policy. None of the points raised regarding signage, NTK, time, confusion etc were mentioned in the first stage appeal- which was a generic ‘google’ appeal containing no mitigating circumstances whatsoever- it therefore would not be fair nor right to consider these additional appeal reasons."

They included a redacted customer license agreement, some photos of their signs, copies of my "appeal" to them to obtain a POPLA code and a screen shot of their website appeals page (that was never available to use as they denied the ability to appeal via their website (hence the emails).

Would me adding a response to their evidence be at all useful, or just wait out the 7 days and let POPLA decide.

Umkomaas

If you break up that headache-inducing wall of text, you might get some response. Regulars have to read so much every day - very often over 100 posts - making things easier to read helps immensely. Thanks. 

Pastafarian_fsm

Noted and edited. The original was how it was formatted in POPLA.

DE_612183

Pastafarian_fsm said:

Noted and edited. The original was how it was formatted in POPLA.

still looks like a wall of text to me...