Thanks.

Letter of appeal sent to PPC. I also noticed the signage does not explain what the APNR data will be used for, nor does the signage have planning permission from checking the local authority portal

Just an update, and what to do next?

I sent a variation of the template appeal to the PPC, which gave an auto-reply email saying your account has been placed on hold and we will consider and contact you in due course, *if you dnot hear from us after 14 days do not assume your notice has been cancelled, make contact with us to be updated on the the status of your appeal.

It has been 20 days now. Should I contact them for an update asking for my popla code?

Why did you do that?

It says so in the sticky at the top, to appeal the notice to keeper and request a popla code

I've not done something wrong have I?

Oh... it was the word 'variation' that surprised me.

I thought that after the earlier discussion it would be a vanilla template appeal that you would send.

No, I didn't vary it too much, just written in my own words. Someone said there's no point bringing up the numerous points where the ticket fails to be valid, because they just reject it anyway, so save it for POPLA.

My question though now is, since they still haven't replied, and they say to contact them if nothing has been heard from them after 14 days. Do I need to contact them to find the decision of the appeal, and if so, by email again replying to their email?

Another point of sending the template appeal as it is, is that it is recognised as coming from MSE and the PPC may realise they have a fight on their hands and give up.

Anyway, we're past that now.

Sorry, I cannot help with your current question.

Why bother?
After 35 days the appeal is deemed accepted. BPA Code of PRactice.

Just an update guys:

They sent a rejection email and popla code as anticipated. Just to point out though, the initial appeal to the PCC said, like the template, all correspondence to be by letter, howeve do any of these make any difference, or best to ignorer:


(1) this came by email, rather than then post as specifically requested in the PCC appeal.

(2) they spelt the name wrong, missing out numerous letters so the name is not really legible

(3) The reply states the appeal is rejected, then states ways to pay. However, it has not even been established who the driver was, which means I am assuming they are just expecting the keeper to pay. However their initial first contact (NTK) was sent after the 14 days pofa requirement, but no where in the letter did they state the keeper would be liable if no name is provided of the driver. They just asked to pay if keeper was the driver, and if not, to provide the driver details. And in the rejection letter, which essentially takes you back to the start, they have not asked who the driver was, but just a pay here sllip lol.


Do I ignore all the above, or are any case points that can be mentioned in the popla appeal, and if so how would I word them to highlight them falling foul of BPA code of practice

Thank you

1) Nope, not important. You cannot bind them to your request
2) Meh, its a rejection letter for an appeal against an INVOICE, so there is no "procedural" errors that are at all important.
3) Yes, and? Thats standard for them.

Ignore all the abvoe, apart fro mteh prt where the NtK does not warn the keeper they will become liabke Because that means they arent using POFA, and the Keeper appeal to POPLA WILL WIN on that point.

Thank you for the help/. Fro the wording of the originial point of contact, the NTK, i'm not 100% sure if they state that the keeper will become liable. Could someone read the letter to see if it falls foul of POFA rules, both on the dates, and the wording.

Here is the first point of contact, the NTK: (need to click the + button to zoom in, then drag to scroll|)

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Cwyy7tzU8b7n8xctmnjNQ5ezqycpJpEU

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1gwEOJHBDZeabcKbLvyHhPStqDkmBkwXp


Edna earlier poited out it falls foul, however, they dont even appear to stating keeper liability in the first place, so irrespective of dates, it doesnt comply anyway?

And if this is the case, given that I dont fully understand POFA, what is the best way to put into wording that the PCC falls foul of POFA on two points in the POPLA appeal, as especially when (and including, the 2nd point being) their rejection letter to the NTK that basically says we reject your appeal, followed by if you do not make payment, the outstanding PCN will be passed to our appointed debt collection agency for further action and all costs associated with this process will be added to the amount outstanding.

I cant access drive while at work.
How dont you understand the DATE element of POFA?

They had 14 days, starting from teh day AFTER the event, for the NtK to GET to you.

Because POFA only applies (where I get confused, I believe) , only if that initial ntk suggesests keeper liability if the driver name isn't given. But the ntk doesn't imply any keeper liability, just a request for the driver. Therefore does that mean POFA is not relevant? And if not what happens then, do I just point out to popla they cannot pursue me, as they didn't imply keeper liability (irrespective of such persuit needing to be within 14 days), however their rejection letter, whilst not stating keeper liability, or asking for the drivers details, simply asks (the keeper) to pay the fee. So how do write it is falling foul off of POFA, especially when it appears to have not been used in the first place. Or am I putting, because it wasn't used, and even if used, was passed the date, they can not request money from me, case closed?

Yes.

It is that simple, same as ALL Smart Parking, CEL, Highview and CP Plus POPLA appeals where they never use the POFA.

As Edna Basher said already, this is EASY:

I've not logged into POPLA yet so not sure as of yet how the submission process works, but I drafted the appeal. All suggestions / changes etc would be greatly appreciated, and also the first paragraph, ie, am I the keeper disputing the rejection, am I asking POPLA's consideration , or asking them to uphold my rejection...

"I am writing to contest the rejection of my appeal to the PCC on multiple grounds based on the many winning POPLA cases on the very same grounds, relating to both BPA code requirements and general codes of practice that have fallen foul :-

1) Inadequate signage:

Inadequate signage that is only visible in imposible scenarios, to the point that it appears they have been deliberately been placed so you would miss them. The 1st sign notifying of no stopping is inset shrouded by bramble bushes and is at the very exact corner of both the main road and the left hand turn into Geldard Close. This means it is impossible for the driver to see unless they stop the car halfway on the busy main road, and halfway into Geldard close to notice it let alone read it.

Below shows a google streetview image of a van in motion, showing exactly where you would have to be to read the first sign - a dangerous position. The sign is not present in the streetview photo being very new signs, but it is directly above the small street sign, at the same angle juxtapositioning both the main road and the side street. It is also much more hiddden by bramble now being summer, meaning it would be only possible to read or notice if the driver were to stop mid turn, causing a traffic violation. Moreover, when turning left, a driver's eyes must be foccussed on the road they are turning into, not coming to an abrupt halt mid turn from a busy main road to spot or read a hidden sign.

After turning into the road, and passing the impossible-to-spot sign, the driver immediately pulled up to the kerb.

From here, the entire windscreen perspective shows zero signs of any nature hinting about parking restrictions - even more so unsual given the depth, width, and space on this road.

If the the parking charge company's intention was to make clear 'no stopping', there would have been ample place to erect a sign or post even far away in the distance, that would be immediately noticeable and warrant inspecting by a driver. However, the next sign after the 1st initial inset hidden corner sign, is a much smaller sign, further down past where the car parked, heavily inset and partially covered by bramble bush, above window hight, whereby it is totally invisible from where the car was parked, and would only be noticed if one was to drive up to it 'in hindsight kwowledge of it being there'. There is designtaed free parking/stopping just past this second sign, which would have been no bother for the driver to use, and which they would have promptly done so, if there were clear and visible signs, pointing out no stopping. There would be no reason for the driver to risk a fine. The only sign of significance in that area is actually the Greggs Pastie store sign which states in large letters more parking further up. Whilst not Greggs's problem, it can make it seem to most reasonable people that even *more* space exists further up, with the implication that there are no "no stopping" penalties around. It does seem the PCC has capitalised on this, and positioned the signs in such an inset way that they are not noticeable until passing them, which you one would not need to do unless no immediate stopping spaces were available. I beleive this breakes BPA codes of practice too. Just a single sign, no matter how small in ones front perspective would draw the attention of drivers, but they chose to inset signs at 90 degrees, into the bramble covered barbed fencing running parrelal to the road, so only visible (when not bramble obscured and in a position to loook higher than car level) when passing them, making them only pottentially visible when you pass them. This goes against BPA code.

BPA code also states that new changes, such as this new 'no stopping' changes should be implemented to make extra care in making the signs even more so noticeable than usual, given it is a sudden new introduction. If anything, the Parking Charge Company have done the opposite, as a cash cow to catch people who dont go out of their way to trawl all down the road in hunt of any posible small signs further down. It is also worth adding that an expectation of red no stopping signs could have been added to make up for the inadequate signage if not stopping was the genuine intention.

See uploaded images:

(image 1) the main road and left turn into Geldard Close on streetview, showing where the positioning of the 1st (only) Large sign being at 45 degrees to the 90 degrees left turn, heavily inset, making it impossible to stop and view, if at all notice when paying due care and attention to driving. The street view image doesnt show the sign as it is a new sign placed discreetly as possible, however, it is directly above the the visibve street sign inset against the railing fencing, at the same diagonal angle, and being the time of the year, the whole fence covered in much more bramble bush obscuring it (see next pics...)

(pic 2) Photo on streetview, of a van, showing where you would have to be stantionary to read and view the sign, causing a danger if you're lucky enough to spot it, being partially on the fast moving busy main road, and partially into Geldard Close.

(pic 3) The real life photos taken after receiving the NTK, approaching the left turn ..*notice the increase in bramble bush and consequently non-visible sign* !!!

(pic 4) this is where the car parked, for perspective, against the kerb, several car spaces down along after making the left turn. No visible in any direction, left , right, or many many meters ahead in the distance (there are none dispite huge stretches of ample space to erect a sign).

(5)the windscreen view from the car after having parked up against the kerb just after turning left. Notice nothing at all visible highlighting 'no stopping', (which despite being a private road in hindsight after a trip their on foot to observe), a large or even small pole with a small sign anywhere infront even many meters in the foreground, would have been enough to encourage the driver, or any driver to investigate that there may be restrictions, prompting the driver to drive over to read them. Also notice the brambe bushes to the left, with nothing visible, but there is acually the 2nd sign inset onto the railing fence, so inset, and partially covered by bramble, and abover car height, that as you can see is completely invisible!

(2) Falling foul of POFA rules:

The first point of contact was the Notice to Keeper (see uploaded (upload 6) Looking at the relevant dates, it can be noted the PCN was delivered outside of the perioid for the PPC to be able to use Schedule 4 of POFA to claim unpaid chares from the keeper:

- the PCN was delivered outside of the relevant period for the PPC to be able to use Schedule 4 of POFA to claim unpaid parking charges from the keeper: -
* Date of parking event: Tuesday 17 July 2108
* Relevant period: 14 days from Wednesday 18 July - Tuesday 31 July 2018 inclusive
* Date PCN posted: Wednesday 1 August 2018
* Date PCN deemed delivered: Friday 3 August 2018 = outside of the relevant period

With this is mind, falling foul of POFA rules, and the fact that their subsequent appeal-rejection letter still does not suggest keeper liability but simply prov des a pay-slip, they cannot peruse myself, keeper (not driver) for this charge.

(3) Looking at the NtK - the Reason for issue is 'NO PARKING OR WAITING AT ANY TIME'. So no contract to stop was ever offered therefore this is either a Penalty (no private company can penalise any one) or alternatively a trespass has occurred and the remedy for that lies exclusively with the landowner, not the PPC (as confirmed by The Supreme Court in ParkingEye v Beavis).

(4) Grace time. BPA code states reasonable time should be allowed, a grace period. This was put in to give drivers reasonable time to read the visible notice etc, although it doesn't state what you choose to do with that grace time. For some, just queueing to exit a restricted area would come under the grace time, despite them being aware of restrictions. For the driver, despite being unaware of any restrictions due to the lack of adequate signage, the 3 minitutes still falls under the grace time, and if the driver would have seen any signs they would have promptly acted.

(5) If my appeal is rejected, leading up to my points being brought up in court, I would need to see in advance a valid in date contract between the PCC and the landower with the stipulations of the contract, and would need to see the relevant planning permission for the 1st discreetly hidden sign, which is the largest and falls under planning permission, which Leeds City Council Planning have not received an application for.

(6) BPA codes to paraphrase states that if APNR data is used, as in this case, it should clearly be noted what the data will be collected for. This does not appear on any sign as per previous pics.

Shouldn't your first point be your strongest, i.e. POFA non-compliance?

I think the OP has failed to comprehend the fact that because the NTK is non-POFA compliant then they have no right to pursue the KEEPER. The PPC can ONLY pursue the DRIVER. They do not know who the DRIVER is (unless someone blabbed).

Therefore, your appeal to POPLA must be that the PPC have no grounds to pursue you as the DRIVER because they cannot assume that you were the DRIVER. They must PROVE you were the DRIVER. They cannot do this.

The only way they can pursue you as the KEEPER is if they have complied with POFA, which we know they haven't, both by wording and by failure to issue the NTK within the approved timeline.

Make sure you put the POFA argument at the top of the list. They will fail on that point alone and you win. All the other arguments are secondary.

Thanks guys. Yes I was going to put the POFA argument first when sending, being the most robust, and include B789's more strongly written wording lol.

Thank you. I'll keep up updated of the outcome.

you need to find a recent POPLA appeal based on similar arguments , copy and paste it and adapt it


point 1) POFA2012 failures


point 2) NO transfer of liability from driver to keeper


point 3) GRACE Priods (CLAUSE 13 OF THE bpa cOp)


point 4) no landowner authority - no contract


point 5) SIGNAGE issues etc


point 6) any BPA CoP failures



anything else like anpr etc


most of it is copy and paste and adapt any wording like PPC name etc



its pointless telling popla about any possible court case, its nothing to do with them


the NEWBIES sticky thread tells you how to submit to popla, as a pdf attachment after choosing OTHER

Thanks RedX,
My reasoning behind that was that the pcc are given the opportunity to counter reply, and knowing I'd bring up the POFA failure in court resulting in a clear cut win would make them not waste any more time and move on to the next target.

I shall remove it though x