ANOTHER notice in the SAME CP - this time its non-display due to 'flipped' ticket

brutal_deluxe

So my sister found a windscreen notice because of non display of a valid ticket or permit:

(to be scanned and uploaded)

Reason - the ticket had flipped over

https://drive.google.com/file/d/10WcAB82UNeDZiseQiKCsCVUvO1PD9iWZ/view?usp=sharing

She immediately appealed (unbeknown to me!)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VTY0XIPsfZS4epPUT-RxHyfOQLrN0FZS/view?usp=sharing

They consequently rejected saying the notice was correctly issued. Fine is £100 but reduced to £20 if paid before 18-02

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BYMPsr9SJaennNp7H5SYSXn8xXTIcpuS/view?usp=sharing

NTK has not yet been received.

I successfully appealed for her via POPLA in this very car park 6 years ago for a different allegation. Unfortunately I cannot remember on which grounds it won but I kept my appeal letter:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1noqwrcRdTgsAqGSV8q8fDR4lLwj6lAiw/view?usp=sharing

I have drafted a POPLA appeal based on the same points but want to know if it can include anything relating to the ticket and/or its serial number?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Y2hroPFj3h5VbV2vW5M3XrEvaUcBnh2L/view?usp=sharing

I appreciate there are still a few unknowns until I have fresh photos of signage/wording etc but would be great to get your thoughts early on :)

Many thanks as always

BD

Coupon-mad

Your photos as images:

I think POPLA is worth a whirl v CSPM but don't expect to win, and keep it much simpler:

• no NTK was issued (only a windscreen PCN) and whilst the keeper admits to having purchased the ticket at the machine and being an occupant of the car, there is no evidence as to who was driving. The driver cannot be presumed to be one and the same person as the keeper or appellant. An appeal from the registered keeper does not change the POFA 2012 statutory requirement for a compliant NTK to be issued and this must be only after obtaining data 'from the Secretary of State' - i.e. via the DVLA. There can be no keeper liability in this case.
  
• The sign doesn't state which way up the ticket had to be displayed, only that it had to be purchased for the full time (it was) be 'valid' for the site and stay (it was) and 'displayed' on the windscreen (it was). Other operators include a specific term on their signage and/or in the ticket about which would be 'face up' but this operator has no such term. A consumer cannot breach a term that was not explicitly stated in the contract and (in UK law - the CRA 2015) any omission or ambiguity in terms must be interpreted in the way that most favours the consumer. See photo evidence of signs.
  
• No landowner authority (put them to strict proof of full compliance and quote clause 14 of the Joint Code AND that CoP's Annex about the example landowner authority document, not the old para 7 of the BPA CoP).

DO NOT BOTHER WITH THE REST.

samtaylor99

The 'flipped' side of the bought ticket clearly shows the number 124133218. The 'correct' side of the ticket shows the same number albeit printed in two blocks on either side of the notice to 'place this side up inside windscreen'. Being a light flimsy piece of paper if placed correctly it is still quite liable to 'flip' in the air rush caused by the door closing. The company can see the correct fee was paid for the correct time. Why identify the ticket with a corresponding number on each side if they are not going to use this information ?

Coupon-mad

Add that to what I posted. That's the POPLA Appeal done.

brutal_deluxe

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81876075#Comment_81876075

Thanks guys very useful!

So I shouldn't wait for NTK with a bid to use potential non compliance as an appeal point?

BD

Coupon-mad

I would wait until around day 30 from the rejection letter (POPLA Codes always work for 33 days, NOT just 28).

MothballsWallet

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81875727#Comment_81875727

If they used that information, it would require them to do work and they would not be able to issue these speculative invoices so easily.

In my (cynical) opinion at least.

samtaylor99

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81877052#Comment_81877052

Agreed ! However, by placing this info on both sides of the ticket they are laying themselves open to allegations of vexatious claims against a customer, as the parking ticket issurer, with minimal tech, could easily access the information required to prove a legal parking.

brutal_deluxe

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81876075#Comment_81876075

• No landowner authority (put them to strict proof of full compliance and quote clause 14 of the Joint Code AND that CoP's Annex about the example landowner authority document, not the old para 7 of the BPA CoP).

Is there a reference to this anywhere on the forum? Its seems to be a new addition since my last appeal. Apologies if not

Gr1pr

Try the BPA website

Coupon-mad

Yep you were meant to just Google it. I am not updating the POPLA advice. No point!