Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • HaloNerd117
    • By HaloNerd117 14th May 18, 1:54 PM
    • 6Posts
    • 9Thanks
    HaloNerd117
    No NTK served by One Parking Solution. At POPLA stage. Can I win?
    • #1
    • 14th May 18, 1:54 PM
    No NTK served by One Parking Solution. At POPLA stage. Can I win? 14th May 18 at 1:54 PM
    Hello good people!

    I'm very new here but I've found reading everyone's posts has helped me immensely with this. This is very short notice but hopefully I'm able to find some help, I will keep this thread updated as I go through the process for others in a similar situation.

    Situation: I received a Parking Charge Notice on 17th March 2018. by One Parking Solution limited.
    I appealed using the NEWBIES thread advice on 13th April (day 27). I then received a rejection on 17th April (Day 31). That was their last correspondence of any kind. It is now day 58 and no NTK has been served.

    My Question: Since more than 56 days have passed, should I appeal based solely on this to POPLA as non-complaint with POFA and no keeper liability? or would I need to include this as well as a lengthy explanation of their crap signs etc. as others have done to throw them off?

    At no point have I identified the driver.

    I plan on doing the latter just in case, as the keeper, by midnight tonight!

    What would you advice?

    Cheers

    HaloNerd
Page 1
    • DS90
    • By DS90 14th May 18, 2:31 PM
    • 34 Posts
    • 23 Thanks
    DS90
    • #2
    • 14th May 18, 2:31 PM
    • #2
    • 14th May 18, 2:31 PM
    Hi, the same thing happened to me a few years ago with a POPLA firm. The parking operator failed to issue an NTK in time so I used that as my primary defence at POPLA, but I also went hard on all of the other points.

    In the end, the parking operator didn't even bother submitting any evidence to POPLA, so the appeal was allowed regardless. I think the lack of an NTK within the timeframe of POFA is a slam-dunk at POPLA, because they can no longer legally pursue the keeper for the charge. Most likely it's a half-arsed firm that only pursues as far as the appeal stage so they may not bother submitting any evidence to POPLA either.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 14th May 18, 3:14 PM
    • 19,402 Posts
    • 30,661 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #3
    • 14th May 18, 3:14 PM
    • #3
    • 14th May 18, 3:14 PM
    DS90's advice is good. If you're brave, you could go with a single appeal point of 'No Keeper Liability', or you can 'kitchen-sink' it with all the standard appeal points from the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post # 3. When bit-part operators are faced with a very detailed appeal, the don't have the staff resource to deal with it, and very often fold on its receipt.

    If you go for the longer appeal, make sure the 'No Keeper Liability' appeal point is at #1.
    The fact that I have commented on your thread does not mean I have become your personal adviser. A long list of subsequent questions addressed for my personal attention is unlikely to receive a reply.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • HaloNerd117
    • By HaloNerd117 14th May 18, 3:17 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    HaloNerd117
    • #4
    • 14th May 18, 3:17 PM
    • #4
    • 14th May 18, 3:17 PM
    Fantastic. I thought so and will be doing exactly that as my main defence.

    The PCN itself and the 1st stage appeal rejection letter has nothing about "keeper liability" after this many days anyway, it only states in one bit of the PCN that "if a payment is not made after 28 days, we may pursue the details of the keeper from DVLA and send a notice to keeper". That is the only reference to the keeper but there's no mention of liability.

    I will post up the appeal I tend to submit tonight along with the PCN for others to look at. I will also update as we go along
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th May 18, 3:27 PM
    • 61,574 Posts
    • 74,446 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #5
    • 14th May 18, 3:27 PM
    • #5
    • 14th May 18, 3:27 PM
    No NTK served by One Parking Solution. At POPLA stage. Can I lose?
    Fixed that for you, the answer to the amended question, is no.

    Not without a NTK.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • HaloNerd117
    • By HaloNerd117 5th Jun 18, 2:56 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    HaloNerd117
    • #6
    • 5th Jun 18, 2:56 PM
    • #6
    • 5th Jun 18, 2:56 PM
    Ok guys, I'm making an update on this situation now as I am now required to add comments on the POPLA section.

    So, the operator has uploaded their "evidence" and all it is are their original images of the vehicle taken at the time including that of the crappiest sign on earth, and my appeal correspondence with them. The only new thing they've added is a signed contract by the landowner for the PPC to operate in the area.

    Aside from that, they've added a small paragraph in the portal box stating the usual that the driver entered in to a contract when they entered the site, blah blah blah they didn't show a valid permit etc. They also mentioned that they're not perusing the keeper as "the appellant is clearly the driver". However, they have provided NO EVIDENCE of that of any form nor have they followed POFA 2012 by issuing an NTK at all and I have not provided anything to anyone reserving who the driver was at the time.

    My question:

    How would I go about rebutting this? Will it be a simple case of me just mentioning in a short paragraph that no evidence of who the driver was ever provided and No assumptions can be drawn, and that no NTK served therefore a strict violation of PoFA 2012?

    Will it need to be any more than that?

    Cheers
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 5th Jun 18, 3:12 PM
    • 9,237 Posts
    • 9,447 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #7
    • 5th Jun 18, 3:12 PM
    • #7
    • 5th Jun 18, 3:12 PM
    You need to read the PPC's evidence and robustly challenge everything that they have got wrong.

    You need to scour their evidence and ensure they have responded to all the points you raised in your appeal. Everything that they haven't challenged needs to be highlighted to PoPLA as the evidently agree with your assertions.
    .
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 5th Jun 18, 3:32 PM
    • 3,429 Posts
    • 4,264 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    • #8
    • 5th Jun 18, 3:32 PM
    • #8
    • 5th Jun 18, 3:32 PM
    You need to state to POPLA that the operator has to prove their assertion that the Appellant is the Driver of the vehicle, and they must substantiate where this is "clearly" shown. As they have not done so, and have chosen not to use POFA2012 to hold the Appellant liable, including a filaure of sevrice of a NtK, the appela must be upheld.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 5th Jun 18, 4:05 PM
    • 10,000 Posts
    • 9,821 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #9
    • 5th Jun 18, 4:05 PM
    • #9
    • 5th Jun 18, 4:05 PM
    This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

    Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

    Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

    The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

    http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

    and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • HaloNerd117
    • By HaloNerd117 5th Jun 18, 9:43 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    HaloNerd117
    From the sounds of things it seems that I would need to rebut any point they have made in the portal, including the attached images and correspondance of the 1st stage appeal with them and myself, would I be correct to assume this?

    Thanks
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 5th Jun 18, 9:55 PM
    • 19,402 Posts
    • 30,661 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    From the sounds of things it seems that I would need to rebut any point they have made in the portal, including the attached images and correspondance of the 1st stage appeal with them and myself, would I be correct to assume this?

    Thanks
    Originally posted by HaloNerd117
    You need to rebut anything that is plainly wrong, or that you disagree with. You need to remind POPLA of anything you've put in your appeal that the PPC hasn't argued against, therefore accepting your point.

    You must remember that you have only 2,000 characters (not words) available, so you need short, sharp, punchy bulletpoints, yet still getting your points across.

    Also be aware that you cannot add any new points of appeal or evidence. So work within the above parameters.
    The fact that I have commented on your thread does not mean I have become your personal adviser. A long list of subsequent questions addressed for my personal attention is unlikely to receive a reply.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • HaloNerd117
    • By HaloNerd117 26th Jun 18, 1:03 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    HaloNerd117
    POPLA appeal SUCCESSFUL!
    I knew with good conscience that this was coming. The operator seemed to be so confident that they were going to get away with it.

    Anyway, I've posted up my case in the POPLA Decisions thread for others to view. But here it is also:

    In summary, the operator did not serve an NTK (because they were so confident that I was the driver) but could never prove it, in fact, no evidence of it was ever given...idiots.

    Decision
    Successful
    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the motorist failed to display a valid permit.
    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant has raised multiple grounds of appeal. The first is that the Notice to Keeper was never served, so Keeper Liability cannot apply. The operator has not shown that the individual it is pursuing is in fact the driver who is liable for the charge. The third is that there is no evidence of Landowner Authority. The final ground of appeal is that the signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. The appellant has provided evidence to support their submission. This includes a 10-page pdf file detailing their grounds of appeal. The document includes a tweet from the UK Supreme Court, an example sign, the appeal form, photographs of the signage provided by the operator and links to websites to support their appeal.
    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that the driver of the vehicle has been identified. It is clear from the operator’s case file that the PCN was “issued to vehicle” on the date in question. The only way a parking operator can transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper of a vehicle, is by using the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012). There is no evidence to suggest that the operator transferred liability from the driver of the vehicle to the registered keeper of the vehicle. Therefore, the operator is not attempting to use the provisions of PoFA 2012. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate who the driver of the vehicle was and therefore liable for the charge. As the appeal has been allowed, there is no need to consider any other grounds of appeal.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

929Posts Today

6,333Users online

Martin's Twitter