PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

NCP - false photographs submitted to POPLA
HSS
post Wed, 19 Sep 2018 - 13:03
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 19 Sep 2018
Member No.: 99,960



Afternoon all...
A little background on my current predicament,
I received a PCN at my works car park (railway car park, no public access, permits required). I broke down in the way to work, car got recovered, took wife's car to work....forgot permit, PCN attached to screen.
Obviously NCP rejected my appeal, even though they've not lost anything, it's not a public car park, has no ticket machine etc. Off I went to Popla. Explained my circumstances and informed them that the car park has no signage whatsoever anywhere.

NCP has responded with
"NCP Ltd
Operator Case Summary
The motorist has appealed on the basis that they hold a valid permit for this car park, they claim on the date of event their car broke down on the way to work and they had to use their wife’s car instead. The appellant has provided a copy of the permit and would like the PCN to be cancelled.

We note the appellant’s comments and sympathise with their situation, however the vehicle the appellant has provided a copy of the permit for is not the vehicle parked on the date of event. When the parking attendant checked the vehicle there was no permit displayed and therefore the PCN was correctly issued.

Paragraph 5 of National Car Parks Terms and Conditions clearly state it is important to the effective management of the Car Park: a) you comply with all signs in the car park, including these Terms and Conditions board. b) Park within the limits of a bay. c) You do not park within a bay designated for a specific purpose when you are not entitled to do so (for example, and without limitation parking in a space designated for disabled persons without an appropriate disability badge displayed, and / or parking in a space for electric vehicles when you are not using the charging facility

Paragraph 8 Traffic Orders and Bylaws states in section b) If the Car Park does not have barriers (at entry and exit), you must clearly display your permit valid for the Car park in the windscreen of your vehicle.

It is the responsibility of every motorist to observe and comply with the Terms and Conditions our facilities are provided and managed under and by leaving the vehicle the appellant indicated their acceptance of our displayed conditions and equally accepted that a PCN would be issued for non compliance of the displayed conditions.

To conclude the PCN has been issued correctly for a clear breach of the displayed conditions and NCP have submitted sufficient evidence to support the enforcement of the Notice.

POPLA state decisions will be based on finding of fact; the facts are that the appellant parked in clear breach of our displayed Terms"


However....when I reviewed the photographic evidence, the devious So and So's have gone and taken photographs of signage at a different car park and attempted to pass them off as the car park I was parked in. Surely this I heading towards fraudulent misrepresentation?

Just wondering where to go from here.

This post has been edited by HSS: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 - 13:09
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 5)
Advertisement
post Wed, 19 Sep 2018 - 13:03
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Jlc
post Wed, 19 Sep 2018 - 13:19
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,510
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (HSS @ Wed, 19 Sep 2018 - 14:03) *
However....when I reviewed the photographic evidence, the devious So and So's have gone and taken photographs of signage at a different car park and attempted to pass them off as the car park I was parked in. Surely this I heading towards fraudulent misrepresentation?

Just wondering where to go from here.

The POPLA decision is not binding on you.

I would put them under warning of this behaviour that if they raised a court claim you would seek costs for unreasonable behaviour.

They are not particularly litigious and if they have 'forged' evidence then they'll only get themselves in deep doo doo.

Ensure you have the correct pictures yourself.

EDIT: This is still at POPLA? You can rebut their submission...

This post has been edited by Jlc: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 - 13:33


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
HSS
post Wed, 19 Sep 2018 - 13:23
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 19 Sep 2018
Member No.: 99,960



Yes it's still at POPLA. I have photogrpahic and video evidence of the car park I used
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ManxRed
post Wed, 19 Sep 2018 - 13:27
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,985
Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Member No.: 21,992



Send it in as a rebuttal of their 'evidence'. Rebut everything in their evidence pack.


--------------------
Sometimes I use big words I don't understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Wed, 19 Sep 2018 - 13:37
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



Best of luck

On several occasions I've informed the assessor that the parking company had sent photos of a completely different car park, including a different name on the entrance sign
I've also drawn attention to fake signatures on witness statements or pictures that weren't taken at the time that was claimed

A couple of times he/she has found an inventive reason to accept the appeal but I've never seen an assessment that accepted a "wrong photos" rebuttal
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 19 Sep 2018 - 15:15
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



My daughters appeal (POPLA mkI) was accepted on the basis they hadn’t proven the signage was as claimed.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 07:09
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here