One Parking Solution POPLA Appeal

I've redacted both documents for anonymity with the exception of page no. 2 of the contract where the location is left blank on the original.

Coupon-mad wrote: »

That NTK isn't POFA compliant:

- Under USEFUL INFORMATION: ''within 28 days of this notice'' (Nope, not the right time period).

- higher up the first page ''on the assumption that the keeper was the driver'' (Nope, no lawful presumption).

Yet their evidence states they are ''Seeking keeper liability''. Well, they've failed.

Not only that, the pages of the so-called contract don't match, the second page has no location and at the end, it's signed by a different, unidentified person (L Johnstone?) than Nigel Stonard who is stated to be the contact on page #1. He has never signed it and we have no idea who this L Johnstone is.

And in addition even if POPLA are minded to believe the apparently cut&shut 'contract' is valid for some reason, it states in the conditions that it is dependent upon OPS complying with the POFA...LoooooooooLLLLLL!!!!!!

Easy evidence to rebut, a terrible effort by OPS.

I give them marks of 1/10 (would have been 2/10 but they've committed the heinous crime of stating that they will try their ''upmost'' to do something. Derrrr! Illiteracy reins in the private parking World!

Thanks coupon-mad, you're a lifesaver.

Here's my rebuttal draft:

Please find my rebuttal below:
1. Picture of parking notice is not a real picture of a notice from the site. The picture of the sign labelled ‘OPS Sign’ is a picture of what appears to be their sign in pristine condition taken as a close up under ideal lighting on what looks like a wooden desk. There are no pictures provided of any signs at the site of the alleged parking contravention. The font is too small to be legible from the driver’s perspective. The signs OPS use at the *** site are few and far between in poor condition and hidden from view. The burden of proof is on the operator to provide clear and up to date pictures of signs at the site.
2. Photo evidence is clearly doctored. See picture ‘815180-OPS61467’ and ‘815182-OPS61467’. These images have been doctored to be black and white to hide the flashing hazard lights.
3. Landowner Contract has multiple flaws. Please see the following:
a. Page 1:
i. The first page is neither initialled nor dated
ii. Contact listed on page is a property manager and not the landowner
b. Page 2
i. The contract has no specified end date which is against BPA CoP.
ii. The specified customer at point 1 is a property manager and not the landowner therefore there is no contract with the landowner.
iii. There is no location listed under ‘location’
c. Page 5
i. Contract signed by an unknown third party as opposed to the contact listed on page 1.
4. Notice to keeper isn’t POFA compliant because of the following:
a. Time listed under useful information on page 2 i.e. “within 28 days of this notice”
b. The statement “on the assumption that the keeper was the driver”. There is no lawful presumption
c. Notice to keeper and OPS summary are in disagreement as summary states “seeking keeper liability”