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
    • betman
    • By betman 5th Jun 18, 11:01 PM
    • 153Posts
    • 224Thanks
    betman
    PCN Park Watch Antelope Park Southampton
    • #1
    • 5th Jun 18, 11:01 PM
    PCN Park Watch Antelope Park Southampton 5th Jun 18 at 11:01 PM
    Hello fellow MSE members
    Event:
    Driver was experiencing cut out of engine due to oil leak. Parked on Antelope Park Southampton to visit The range where in 2017 he had parked before .Parked here rather than car park in case the AA were needed for easy access. It appears late 2017 new restrictions were introduced on this road. Driver parked in Gavan Street in a marked white line bay no Yellow lines, no wording on the ground such as a !!!8220;P!!!8221; to determine permit holders only. No visible signage from drivers seat as sign was five bays back parallel to Road. No signage facing driver along the Road of entry. Driver entered car length of Lidl loading bay and reversed back past double Yellow lines into first bay. Engine cut out and failed to start so was imobilised at this point. Driver had observed upon entering Antelope Park the Parking Eye car park T&C which were clearly visible. Also in the car park driver observed signage that advised and stated PE managed the car park.
    Weeks later received PCN from Park Watch with 2 images of car plate and windscreen two white lines show this to be a road. They state " Parked in a manner whereby the driver became liable for a PC at Antelope Park that we are authorised to manage ( conflicting as PE say they do so who does ). The terms and conditions of parking on this private land are clearly set out on the signage installed within the car park. by parking within this car park the driver is bound to these terms and conditions and liable to pay a charge if they breach these terms and conditions".
    The PCN should say parked in Gavan Street. They claim driver is bound by terms in car park which have been followed surely this is contradictory and confusing. Please could the experts look over my appeal to Park Watch Many Thanks.
    Last edited by betman; 06-06-2018 at 11:06 AM. Reason: privacy
Page 3
    • betman
    • By betman 10th Aug 18, 3:47 PM
    • 153 Posts
    • 224 Thanks
    betman
    Did you make the specific point that the notice was not deliverd in 14 days. Entirely possible that over 29 pages they lost the will to live and missed that point. Theyve only mentioned reviewing the *notice* and not the *timescales* whcih suggests that.
    Originally posted by nosferatu1001

    Yes I did. She claims to have read it by refering to the paragraph 5. I would think this would at court stage be thrown out if or not she has chosen to ignore it which she has. PW have at no stage in their inaccurate evidence of misleading examples have not disputed this timescale. I would have expected an experienced person to have noted this and not continued. I am hoping that Coupon Mad sees this as i think you can write to a John Gallagher if procedures have not been followed.


    Thanks,


    BM


    Popla Appeal ;



    5. This Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the dates. Under schedule 4, paragraph 4 of the POFA, an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle if certain conditions must be met as stated in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 & 12.

    This operator has not fulfilled the 'second condition' for keeper liability as defined in Schedule 4 and as a result, they have no lawful authority to pursue any parking charge from myself, as a registered keeper appellant.

    There is no discretion on this matter. If Schedule 4 mandatory documents are not served at all, or in time (or if the document omits any prescribed wording) then keeper liability simply does not apply.
    Park Watch have failed to fulfill the conditions which state that the keeper must be served with a compliant NTK in accordance with paragraph 9, which stipulates a mandatory timeline and wording:-

    !!!8217;!!!8217;The notice must be given by!!!8212;

    (a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or

    (b) sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.!!!8217;!!!8217;

    The applicable section here is (b) because the NTK was delivered by post.

    Furthermore,
    paragraph 9(5) states:

    !!!8217;!!!8217;The relevant period...
    is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended!!!8217;!!!8217;

    The NTK sent to myself as Registered Keeper arrived and was delivered into my letterbox some 17 days after the alleged incident .
    xxxxxxx alleged infringement. xxxxx Notice Issue date. Received xxxxxx. Read by myself at xxxx

    Plus post 38 at reply to operator evidence:
    EV3 NTK As stated in appeal although printed as 24/05/ NTK FAILED TO ARRIVE BY 14 DAY DEADLINE. The operator has not disputed this at appeal/evidence stage, therefore operator failed to act in time for NTK liability to apply



    Last edited by betman; 10-08-2018 at 3:53 PM. Reason: duplication
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 10th Aug 18, 3:56 PM
    • 11,255 Posts
    • 11,821 Thanks
    KeithP
    PW have evaded answering points 2/5/6/7b (crossed out) 8. Ref my appeal letter to them
    Originally posted by betman
    Is that all you said in your rebuttal about point 5?

    If so, I think you let yourself down here.

    You should've forcefully pointed out to PoPLA that the operator had not disputed your statement that the NtK was late.
    Last edited by KeithP; 10-08-2018 at 3:59 PM.
    .
    • betman
    • By betman 10th Aug 18, 5:52 PM
    • 153 Posts
    • 224 Thanks
    betman
    Is that all you said in your rebuttal about point 5?

    If so, I think you let yourself down here.

    You should've forcefully pointed out to PoPLA that the operator had not disputed your statement that the NtK was late.
    Originally posted by KeithP

    Hi Keith,


    Easy to say that but there were a lot of points to forcably point out. Not easy when the corrupt system is loaded against you when you can only use 2000 characters. Forceably or not the law is the law and I don't see why when reading this and I doubt if it was all read due to the way an operator can put out of date pictures it be pointed out to Popla and they ignore this that as it has been clearly stated on more than once throughout this appeal and previous written appeal to the operator that the assessor would supposedly have read would have sunk in . But believe me I can be very forceful in a controlled manner in a court room. What would be your next line of action Keith?
    Last edited by betman; 10-08-2018 at 5:53 PM. Reason: error
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 10th Aug 18, 5:58 PM
    • 11,255 Posts
    • 11,821 Thanks
    KeithP
    What would be your next line of action Keith?
    Originally posted by betman
    Ignore all debt collector's letters and if/when you get either a Letter of Claim or official court correspondence then post again on this thread if you need further assistance.
    .
    • betman
    • By betman 10th Aug 18, 6:04 PM
    • 153 Posts
    • 224 Thanks
    betman
    Ignore all debt collector's letters and if/when you get either a Letter of Claim or official court correspondence then post again on this thread if you need further assistance.
    Originally posted by KeithP

    What about writing to John Gallagher asking why previous appeals have been successful when not meeting the time period and why this assessor did not adopt the same law. Surely it is a procedural error as it has not been addressed of which I could also query. Plus I could when receiving the next correspondance from the operator ask why they are not adhering to this point of law.
    Last edited by betman; 10-08-2018 at 6:06 PM. Reason: error
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 10th Aug 18, 6:09 PM
    • 11,255 Posts
    • 11,821 Thanks
    KeithP
    What about writing to John Gallagher asking why previous appeals have been successful when not meeting the time period and why this assessor did not adopt the same law. Surely it is a procedural error as it has not been addressed of which I could also query.
    Originally posted by betman
    You could try that - with Steve Clark rather than John Gallagher.

    Steve's email address is in post #5 of the NEWBIES thread.


    Plus I could when receiving the next correspondance from the operator ask why they are not adhering to this point of law.
    Originally posted by betman
    But the PPC only has to send the NtK within six months of the parking event.
    Last edited by KeithP; 10-08-2018 at 8:04 PM.
    .
    • betman
    • By betman 11th Sep 18, 10:11 PM
    • 153 Posts
    • 224 Thanks
    betman
    Update.


    POPLA Update.


    POPLA shifting the blame now to Post Office. Surely for such an important document the operator should have correspondance of this nature signed for as it is my word against theirs. Ah but that would put there operating costs up wouldn't it.



    Your complaint about POPLA

    Thank you for your email dated 25 August 2018, which was passed to me by the POPLA team as I am responsible for responding to complaints.

    I have reviewed the assessorís decision and I am satisfied that the outcome reached is correct.
    I note that you state that the Notice to Keeper was not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. You state that the document was not received within the 14 day timeframe as stated under paragraph 9, as it was received 17 days after the alleged incident.

    Whilst I appreciate your comments, POPLA is an evidenced based service and can only assess the factual evidence presented to us. In this case, the operator provided POPLA with evidence of the Notice to Keeper, this shows the date of the incident being the 18 May 2018 and the date that the notice was issued was 24 May 2018. Therefore, this was served six days after the date of the event.

    I note that you dispute this however, this will be a third party dispute between yourself and the operator. POPLA cannot comment on the postal service and why you did not receive this.
    From the evidence we received, the assessor was satisfied that the Notice to Keeper was served within the timeframe given and therefore, the operator has met all requirements of PoFA 2012.

    I consider the assessor to have taken into consideration all of the grounds which you raised to POPLA and has responded to those in her report.

    Following my investigation of your complaint, I do not consider that there have been shortfalls in our service and I am satisfied that we dealt with your case in line with our processes and procedures.

    To clarify, POPLA has reached a decision and this decision will not change.

    In closing, I am sorry that your experience of using our service has not been positive. While I understand this is not the outcome you had hoped for, our involvement in your appeal has now concluded. We have reached the end of our process and my response now concludes our complaints procedure.

    Yours sincerely,

    Ashlea Forshaw
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th Sep 18, 2:00 AM
    • 64,896 Posts
    • 77,462 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    POPLA are correct, there was and is no evidence that the NTK arrived late.

    Sorry, that was a waste of time with a NTK dated a week after a parking event.

    Never mind. Come back if they sue, we will help you defend. 99% of posters report wins.

    • betman
    • By betman 12th Sep 18, 8:30 PM
    • 153 Posts
    • 224 Thanks
    betman
    Thanks CM. There were other issues as the operator submitted images that were not current and mislead Popla with in inaccuracies such as a sign they showed being on it's own, now with other signs. The whole system is weighed to the operator. I am due debt letters next which will be ignored .Thanks for your offer of help if they Sue. BM
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

2,757Posts Today

7,718Users online

Martin's Twitter