POPLA appeal comment advice - already admitted I was the driver

rockyroad99

Hi all,

I truly wish I could have seen this forum earlier but unfornately I didn't. This was my first PCN ever.

Long story short: I received a PCN, appealed stating I was the driver, appeal rejected, POPLA appeal submitted, operator evidence uploaded, now 7 days for me to comment.

Timeline: 

May 19

I passed by store B’s car park entrance to visit store A (a repair garage, car was driven directly into the building), I never ever parked at any store B’s restricted area, only passed by. 

Jul 13

PCN issued for unauthorised parking from Azure Parking Ltd. The PCN has two evidence photos which show my car only at the entrance location (while entering and exiting in motion), no photo evidence shows my car stationary in any parking spot. 

Contacted the store A and they advised not to pay and to dispute it. 

Jul 18

Submitted appeal, simply explained I was only passing by not parked, admitted I was the driver (HUGE MISTAKE!!!) 

Aug 17

Appeal was rejected. 

Contacted store A several times, they promised they would help cancel it and I believed them which I shouldn't.

Sep 14

POPLA appeal deadline approached, store A did nothing helpful and I had to rush for POPLA appeal. Until then have I found this forum with a huge amount of useful information which I should’ve found earlier, but already too late for something. Submitted POPLA appeal focus on POFA 2012, signage, landowner authority, ANPR, and the fact that car wasn’t parked at all. 

Sep 15

Operator evidence uploaded, which is an automatic templated reply, provides original PCN, first appeal, appeal rejection, photos of signage, landowner documents, and the same two evidence photos. And now I have 7 days to comment on their evidence.

My question is: what else should my comment focus on, other than stating that they didn’t provide evidence that my car is stationary? Will the actual fact really matter?

Thanks for reading. Any advice would be appreciated.

Woodstok2000

The ANPR cameras should be used to prove that you have entered, remained on, and then left private land. If you can show that there is the potential to enter past the camera, access an area not subject to parking restrictions, and then leave past the camera, that would invalidate the use of the ANPR.

Your appeal should focus on that fact.

rockyroad99

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82137306#Comment_82137306

Thank you for your reply. In my POPLA appeal letter I didn't state this as a separate ground, would it be considered if I add in the comment?

Woodstok2000

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82137622#Comment_82137622

It absolutely should be considered. If the ANPR camera does not guarantee you remained on the relevant land then how can it be used to prove you parked there? I would suggest getting photos of where the ANPR is, photos of where it isn't (e.g. at the entrance to the garage) and then maybe something to prove you were at the garage, like an invoice. That will back up your version of events.

Coupon-mad

it won't be considered if you didn't raise it but surely you did?

Surely your POPLA appeal included that map and was all about the fact you didn't park in store B's car park and only drove through it?

Not that it matters because of course you'll never have to pay this scam invoice!

I mean, it's only Azure (in fact ZZPS are handling it). A standing joke on this forum.

Show us:

• the PCN, both sides
• the first rejection letter ZZPS sent you, and
• the POPLA 'Operator evidence' from ZZPS

…redact your data and refs but leave all dates showing.

James_Poisson

I don't think that admitting to be the driver has any impact if the NTK complied with all the requirements, in fact looking at the situation the driver's evidence is needed.

I was thrown by the talk of store A and Store B thinking this was a normal retail park, but you are talking about a trading estate with multiple companies, engineering companies, workshops, electrical companies etc.

The entrance to the estate has no signage, this area (if still the same as this 2022 image) is woefully covered by signage and if that covert ANPR camera is the one that caught you it is covert and not signed as being there, it also covers such a wide area as to be ridiculous.

It's quite clear these greedy Muppets don't have a leg to stand on, watch out for undated office copies of signs that don't exist in their evidence, its a scam by anyone's imagination, and at the crux it you were there legitimately.

Another view driving in to that area are there any signs:

rockyroad99

Thanks so much for all the replies!

In my appeal I did include the map and the fact that I didn’t park, and their two photos cannot prove that I parked. About ANPR and signage I only stated they are not reliable, but didn’t specifically say how they’re not reliable. I will add them to the comment. 

PCN and appeal rejection:

Coupon-mad

Yep - that PCN was clearly too late for keeper liability but that baby has been thrown out with the bathwater!

As you now know (too late) you could have appealed as keeper, told ZZPS to shut up when they inevitably would have lied that keepers can't appeal, then you'd have 100% won at POPLA without even having to try.

Instead, you might lose but nobody cares about that because POPLA doesn't matter and you'll never have to pay this invoice.

But put in your comments and remind POPLA that Azure hasn't disproved your appeal and your map shows where you drove through (were not parked), which wasn't where they claim the car was.

Point out any undated office copies of signs and any other holes in their evidence.

What landowner authority have they supplied? Show us that.