PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

NCP final notice for overstaying
oh-no-not-anothe...
post Wed, 17 Oct 2018 - 13:48
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 17 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,442



I have just received a final notice or rather Keeper Liability Notice from NCP for parking in one of their carparks on 1st September. I didn't receive the first notice as we've recently moved and it presumably went to old address. However, I have received this notice as this was redirected. This notice says there is no appeal and fine is £100, threatening debt recovery and court etc - so have 14 days to pay up from second working day after date of sending notice (11/10/18) or 25/10/18 (which is only 2 days by my calculation so should be 27th then?).

At the time of parking the driver was unaware of newly installed ANPR because apparently the carpark had been recently taken over by NCP even though their distinctive orange notices hadn’t yet been installed. The driver recently saw notices have since changed to NCP ones. Back in September the old notices from previous operator were still there so no obvious mention of ANPR and the driver didn't spot or notice any wording about paying £100 fine for overstaying.

Apparently the driver overstayed by 20 minutes even though the driver had paid £1 for an hour - the only option is to pay in hourly increments so even if you go over by 10 minutes you are expected to pay for an extra hour. According to the phone record, the driver paid by phone for the first hour and then made 2 attempts to phone to extend before the hour was up, but we don't know whether that meant the driver had successfully paid up for a 2nd hour.

So I'm not not sure what to do now as I haven't received first notice so cannot supposedly appeal. I could pay (£100 for not paying £1 apparently) or I could write to NCP saying didn't receive first notice or some sort of defence to get them to restart process at new address? I could write to retail park owners/managers asking them to cancel as the driver was visiting four different shops in their retail centre including a big supermarket, so they were customers spending money there.

What is best course of action? Thank you for any suggestions!

This post has been edited by oh-no-not-another-one: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 - 21:09
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 30)
Advertisement
post Wed, 17 Oct 2018 - 13:48
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
ostell
post Mon, 19 Nov 2018 - 12:15
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



If the signs said one company and another separate company is claiming then there cannot be a contract with the new compnay if their name was not on the sign.. No contract, no breach, noting owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Mon, 19 Nov 2018 - 13:19
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



You can put whatever you like in the appeal, NCP will reject it. We've yet to see them accept it

Of course, it is better to set your stall out a little early - it helps with credibility. So this is a KEEPER p[ointing out no NOTICE TO KEEPER has yet been sent - as this is apparently a Notice to Driver, just one sent through the post - and as it was more than 14 days (POFA S4 para 9) or 56 days (para 8) and ther eis no NtK, you cannot have any liability in law.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
oh-no-not-anothe...
post Fri, 23 Nov 2018 - 14:36
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 17 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,442



Sorry for not replying sooner, but thanks for your replies. Appeal sent in so wait to see if code forthcoming and then if I have time and energy to keep fighting this nonsense and waste of time.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
oh-no-not-anothe...
post Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 16:12
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 17 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,442



Hi anyone, who can advise me on next stage now please. So have POPLA code and have until next Monday to submit appeal (they say only 28 days to use).

Have results of SAR, requesting all correspondence - DVLA lookups, any emails between NCP and the retail centre which might be identified (although possibly not. Centre managers passed on my query of PCN to NCP without my permission but driver or keeper's identity wasn’t revealed in query), images of signage at material time (not all old signage had been replaced so anyone infrequent visitors would be unaware NCP new managers or ANPR newly installed), any updates/ case notes.

SAR in the end provided:
- images of car entering and leaving with time codes;
- NtK sent to wrong address (so not received by keeper at time and past 14 days - but has it still been served even if to wrong address?);
- Keeper liability notice again to wrong address (so not received by keeper at time);
- letter from occupant at old address stating desist from sending NCP letters to wrong address, giving new address and requesting old address data erased;
- NCP reply to old address, addressed to me (presuming I was still at old address(?) and had sent previous letter about incorrect address) saying that was address they got from DVLA database;
- email from NCP employee ‘xxx’ to DPO, subject line just PCN number, only saying "could you please withdraw..." (whatever that means - presumably to do with updating address and sending out new notice??) and DPO's reply, "All closed for you" (???);
- PCN to Driver sent to new address, presuming me to be the driver (even though driver never been nominated), saying NtK had already been served.
- copy of my appeal letter as keeper - disputing any driver nomination and that as never received NtK, it hadn’t been served, so demanding POPLA code;
- just one date of imported keeper details from DVLA;
- my SAR letter.

But no images of signage either contemporary or from material time, and no email exchanges between operator and retail centre, so driver/keeper wasn’t identified(?). They inferred they had checked DVLA for keeper details more than once but only one date given in SAR.

In replying to my initial appeal (as keeper in response to their belated/incorrect PCN to Driver) they gave their standard response and provided no evidence. So not surprisingly, despite my request, they did not provide documentation showing any alleged driver nomination, no explanation of PCN offence, no images/evidence to prove period car actually parked for, no images of signage either contemporaneous or from time in question, no record of payments, no mention of grace periods or policy with landowner (to cancel charge for genuine customers/first time offenders).

Have read through arguments and POPLA templates on MSE and presume can try most of usual arguments such as:

1) No keeper liability- PoFA non-compliant NTK due to failure to adhere to strict wording and guidelines set out in PoFA – no mention of PoFA at all in NTK and not received within 14 days (sent to wrong address).
Not sure if can use this one strongly as they sent NtK and Keeper Liability Notice to previous address so didn’t receive in time - but hasn't NtK still technically been served, even if to wrong address? Also not sure if wording on these notices are PoFA compliant? Can upload notices to check wording. Plus is PCN to Driver too late and invalid as sent 68 or 69 days after incident and to keeper, assuming keeper is driver without the driver ever being nominated?

2) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge.
Well wrongly sent ‘PCN to driver’ to keeper and provided no evidence of driver being nominated.

3) Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice–non-compliance.
Not sure can use this as according to time codes, driver overstayed by 31 minutes so more than 2 x 10mins grace. Although they paid by phone for 1 hour and phoned to pay for another hour with 10 mins to go, (there’s phone evidence), but not sure both payments registered as NCP hasn’t provided payment records even though requested.

4. There are no easily visible entrance signs for the regular entry and 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.
There are online complaints about the inconsistent and slow change over of signage since NCP took over, with misleading signage still present from old contractor at time of incident. The driver was used to old system, and being infrequent visitor didn’t realise NCP had taken over or that ANPR had been installed as only saw old signage at machine near where parked and didn’t not notice any yellow NCP signage at entrance. Obviously don’t have photos of old signs as driver unaware car would be ANPRed. NCP has not provided evidence of signage from material time, so no certain proof that non-misleading signage had been universally installed from outset. Have images of current NCP signage at parking spot - £100 charge not clearly legible - and driver can see this does not match old signage/machine still in place at time of incident.

5. No evidence of period parked – NTK does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements.

6. No evidence of land owner authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.

7. Failure to comply with the data protection 'ICO Code of Practice' applicable to ANPR (no information about SAR rights, no privacy statement, no evaluation to justify that 24/7 ANPR enforcement at this site is justified, fair and proportionate). A serious BPA CoP breach.

8. Vehicle Images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance.

9) The ANPR System is neither reliable nor accurate.

10) The signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR Data will be used for.

11) No planning permission (probably - need to check) from council for pole-mounted ANPR cameras and no advertising consent for signage.

Will that be enough or any I've missed?

Pix taken (will try to upload again) a few weeks after time of incident but these show different signs/machine to what was in place when driver parked at same spot on top floor, less used by drivers in general (old signage was blue/grey and had paybyphone facility used by driver to pay, but isn’t available here on this updated machine or even advertised). Carpark has been undergoing various changes over a year or more during which changes have been introduced gradually so some of the old machines were still in place. Looks like when I went to check signs, that a temporary page was inserted in machine to cover up old system’s instructions before eventually new permanent sign is provided(?). Will check if machine has been updated again since. Even at this temporary stage, system didn't provide paybyphone available before - so shows signage was different. Surely hard for NCP to prove signage consistently the same over this period of changeover and that some old ones weren't still there? The driver didn’t see any clear notice about ANPR while there. Even in pix of signs updated after incident, they either don’t mention £100 charge or it's too small to see. The signs at entrance now, driver didn’t see/wasn't aware of at time when parking - would've have been hard to miss new yellow signs if they were there.

Attached Image
Attached Image
Attached Image
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
oh-no-not-anothe...
post Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 19:14
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 17 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,442



Also adding pix of notice letters -
NtK
img]http://i65.tinypic.com/53l8cg.jpg[/img]


Keeper Liability



PCN to Driver



Will add draft of POPLA appeal, if anyone can check/ comment - Thanks.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
oh-no-not-anothe...
post Tue, 15 Jan 2019 - 16:24
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 17 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,442



I’m uploading my POPLA appeal below - unfortunately I didn’t have enough time to finish and upload yesterday, so hopefully someone on the forum has some spare time to have a quick look through today (as I have to submit by end of today) to see if I’ve included the main points and in right order of priority.

Points I wanted to check mainly:
a)Should I try the POFA non compliance point and put it first? - mainly due to strict wording required on NTK which NCP failed, but also trying the argument that NTK not served in time due to sent to old service address which was being updated after a move (shakier argument but perhaps worth a try).

b)Should I prioritise Breach of contract due to poor signage + inadequate signage + land owner authority above POFA non compliance?

c)Also should I even bother with Genuine Customer point with it being NCP? It’s usually something worth doing with retailers like Tesco. Driver has card records showing several transactions.

d)Also does ‘Beavis not applicable to paid-for parking’ apply in this case?
As pointed out somewhere - the ParkingEye Vs Beavis case has meant that parking companies can charge amounts that do not represent loss, and instead are penalties. However, the Beavis case was based on the facts of that particular case – an overstay in a free car park.In the case of ParkingEye Vs Cargius it was held that the Beavis case did not apply since parking was paid for rather than free for a limited period. The judge distinguished it by reasoning that in Beavis the charge was justifable as it was their only income, whereas in a paid car park, only the hourly charge is being lost by overstaying (e.g. £1); anything above that is clearly a penalty. So in a POPLA appeal would it be worth using this to differentiate the case from Beavis?

Also the judges in the Beavis case upheld the decision for ParkingEye based on a certain set of circumstances. A good example is where the signs in the Beavis case clearly and boldly stated there would be a charge of £85 payable for breach. The judges used this in their logic to uphold the case for ParkingEye – i.e. the charge was highlighted and therefore the motorist should know the consequence for overstaying. So, if in your case the signage does not state the charge in large letters, then the same logic cannot apply.

Another aspect of the Beavis case that can be used is that the judges ruled the charges to be legitimate to control parking, when they would otherwise be penalties. As such, if in another case the parking operator does not have a legitimate interest in controlling parking, the charge would be an unenforcable penalty - one example of charges being arguably therefore penalties is underpaying in a car park where by paying the vehicle is fully entitled to be there.

e)Presumably don’t bother with Grace Periods argument as overstay was 31 minutes, even though driver can prove according to phone records that parking paid by phone after entry time, and also phoned pay by parking a second time when parking about to expire - making two attempts to phone - but NCP, despite request in first appeal, failed to provide payment records to confirm whether second payment for 2nd hour accepted by system or not.

Thanks

Appeal re POPLA Code: xxxxxx v National Car Parks Limited
Vehicle Registration: xxxx
NCP PCN: xxxx
POPLA code: xxxxx

I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated xx/11/2018 acting as a notice to the driver, incorrectly assuming the keeper and driver to be the same despite NCP being unable to provide evidence that a driver has been nominated. As keeper I am not legally obliged to nominate a driver and have not done so. My appeal to the operator National Car Parks Limited was submitted and acknowledged on 04/12/2018 but subsequently rejected by a letter attachment to an email dated xx/12/2018.
I contend that I, as the keeper, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:

1) No keeper liability - PoFA non-compliant NTK due to failure to adhere to strict
wording and guidelines set out in PoFA – no mention of PoFA at all in NTK.

2) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the
driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge.

3) No standing or authority to neither pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers
and Breach of Contract due to poor signage

4) There are no easily visible entrance signs for the regular entry and 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.

5) No evidence of landowner authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full
compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.

6) Failure to comply with the data protection 'ICO Code of Practice' applicable to
ANPR (no information about SAR rights, no privacy statement, no evaluation to
justify that ANPR enforcement at this site is justified, fair and proportionate).
A serious BPA CoP breach.

7) No evidence of period parked – NTK does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements.

8)??Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice–non-compliance. (See point e) made above in prev post)

9) Vehicle Images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance.

10) The ANPR System is neither reliable nor accurate.

11) The signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR Data will be used for.

12) No planning permission from xxxxx Council for pole-mounted ANPR
cameras and no advertising consent for signage.

Please note: Additional larger copies of photographic evidence are provided at the back of
this document for reference, as well as embedded within the document where relevant.
Photo images of non-compliant NTK issued also attached at end of document.

1)No keeper liability - PoFA non-compliant NTK due to failure to adhere to
strict wording and guidelines set out in PoFA – no mention of PoFA at all in
NTK.
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, and 12. National Car Parks Limited have failed to
fulfil the conditions which state that an operator must have provided the keeper with a
Notice to Keeper (NTK) in accordance with paragraph 9, which stipulates as mandatory, a
set timeline and wording:

Paragraph 9 (2)(f) states:
“The notice must-
(f) Warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after
that on which the notice is given—
i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d)
has not been paid in full, and
ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current
address for service for the driver,
the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the
right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;

The NTK is not compliant with the specific wording and information which must be
provided to the keeper as per PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 9. The issued NTK does not give
warning to me as the keeper that National Car Parks have a right to recover costs from
myself as keeper.

Please see copy of NTK for full wording, however in summary the NTK states:
• The driver of the above vehicle is liable
• Additional charges may be recovered from the liable party
There is no warning to the keeper that:
the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the
right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;

In addition notice must be given by:

(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.

The applicable section here is (b) because the Parking Charge Notice/NTK that I have
received was delivered by post.

Furthermore, paragraph 9(5) states:

The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days
beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.

The Parking Charge Notice sent to myself as Registered Keeper was sent to a previous address in the process of being updated to a new current address for DVLA records. Therefore the notice was not sent to myself or received by myself within the 14 days period. The notice produced in NCP’s offices showed a purported date of issue on day 11 after the event (day 0 being day of event). However, the notice in fact arrived at the previous service address on day 16, following a weekend on a Monday, which is 2 days over the required limit, and was subsequently returned to sender by the occupant from that previous address, who also wrote to NCP to provide the Keeper’s correct address, explaining the service address was out of date as the Keeper had already moved. A Subject Access Request on 11/12/2018 shows that NCP subsequently confirmed with the DVLA that the Keeper’s new service address had already been updated since NCP first imported the Keeper’s details on 12/09/2018. This means that National Car Parks Limited has failed ensure the notice is sufficiently posted within time and therefore received/delivered within the 14 day relevant
Period.

As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

So, this is a charge that could only be potentially enforced against a known driver and there is no evidence of who that individual was, which brings me to point #2:

2)The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge.

In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. However, I am exercising my right not to name the driver.

In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. As there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

The burden of proof rests with the Operator to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

Understanding keeper liability:

'There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

There is no 'reasonable presumption' in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of
the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper
liability does not generally pass.'

Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA. This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:

''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
oh-no-not-anothe...
post Mon, 22 Apr 2019 - 17:27
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 17 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,442



Hi can anyone help please! I'm going round in circles/jumping through hoops to no avail!!

Although I appealed to POPLA after spending ridiculous amounts of time researching how to write an appeal etc, after all that I've been denied the chance to have my appeal properly heard based on a very p**s poor decision by the assessor.

I've complained to POPLA's lead adjudicator about the assessor refusing not to include my evidence/submission at the appeal stage more than a month ago and have had no reply whatsoever. I only have the basic popla info or complaints email addresses and not the direct one for the lead (J Gallagher?).

Basically POPLA complaints acknowledged during the appeals process that their portal was experiencing technical problems so appellants' documents have not been uploading properly as part of their submission - as in my case. Although I uploaded my document within the time frame, I only discovered much later when the operator provided their evidence pack, that my submission had not properly uploaded/ been included (there is no way of checking if your uploads have properly attached afterwards). I complained and emailed through my appeal document and the rebuttal as a document, with supposed assurances received these would be attached to my case and included for the appeal.

However, when the appeal came to be reviewed, the assessor simply decided he would not review my appeal submissions purely because they had not been provided (uploaded) at the time, despite POPLA complaints acknowledging it was their error not mine. On that basis alone, with none of my evidence or arguments included, of course my appeal was unsuccessful.

I've written by email and directly by post to J Gallagher at Ombudsman Service about this admin/ procedural error but have had no acknowledgement of receipt for either. Even my MP has written to POPLA reiterating that I've raised this complaint.

Is there any way I can get POPLA to properly review this case? I thought my arguments would be enough to have the PCN overturned (POFA 2012 non compliant, poor signage, etc as operator didn't provide evidence to dispute these, and could not prove PCN had been issued correctly). Now after all my pointless effort, I've got first 'debt collector' letter, and would like to fend off the debt guys and operator by getting them suspend while the POPLA complaint is properly investigated.

Any advice please?

Here's complaint email sent to POPLA:

FAO John Gallagher, POPLA Lead Adjudicator

Dear Mr Gallagher,

It would seem, that despite all POPLA assurances following the acknowledged technical problems with your portal, any appeal and comments evidence I provided as PDF documents have not been included as part of the case file nor considered by assessor Stuart Lumsden, who refused to view the appeal evidence due to it being "uploaded their grounds after the appeal was raised". As demonstrated in this email correspondence, there have been technical difficulties with your portal, admitted by POPLA, and which mean appellants like myself have unwittingly been unable to upload appeal documents successfully, and therefore left unaware that uploading failed. This leaves appellants at a severe disadvantage in having a fair hearing of their case in your appeals process, if they are prevented from having their appeal evidence admitted, or subsequently admitted due to extenuating circumstances when POPLA is clearly at fault.

Also as comments made in red below on the assessor's report signal - there are concerning inaccuracies and assumptions made by your assessor, particularly as the assessor refused to include and view the appeal and rebuttal comments provided on the technicality that supposedly it was not provided in time. If your system was robust and fit for purpose, then an explanation would/should have been provided to assessor, ensuring that appeal and comments evidence was included and heard due to the extenuating circumstances, namely your portal's technical failures and subsequent assurances that appeal and comments would be included.

Very worryingly, your assessor wrongly asserts that the appellant identified as the driver - it is not clear how he thinks he knows this as he does not identify the evidence for this, whether it has come via the operator or the appellant in some form. This is not a transparent process if this assertion cannot be tested and the appellant cannot see what evidence the assessor sees or the operator has provided. I have not seen any evidence from NCP in their evidence pack to show that the driver's identity was ever given or confirmed, and appellant made repeated statements that the driver's identity would not be confirmed. Your portal does not make available for viewing any evidence provided for the assessor, if there was subsequent evidence provided, only the basic pack evidence from operator, which is no longer available on portal at the decision stage. The pack evidence provided, which the appellant saw, clearly did not include evidence about driver identity. I cannot see how this assertion about driver's identity being confirmed would stand up in a court hearing.

Also the assessor claims that the operator provided photo evidence of signage - the appellant has not seen any signage evidence in the operator's pack, either current or concerning the date in question. If the appellant's appeal had been admitted and considered, as it should have been - then the assessor would have had to consider that driver liability has not been proven, and that the operator had not proven that all correct signage was in place by the date in question, when the operator was still undergoing a changeover in signage from the previous operator's signage.

This demonstrates a lack of transparency in your appeals process and a lack of due process, which prevents appellants being able to fight unfair parking operator charges. I will be forwarding this complaint to my MP.

Regards,
xxxxxx

Operator Information and Evidence
Submitted 06/02/2019

We have received your comments and we will begin your assessment in due course
Verification Code
xxxxx

Operator Name
NCP

Operator Case Summary

Please see attached evidence packs.
(My comments added - Only evidence I have seen from NCP was from their evidence pack which was standard and basic, at the submission stage - not available now on portal at decision stage which does not provide transparency of process. This pack evidence did not answer any points raised in previous appeal letters - or points raised in appellant's appeal (which POPLA failed to include as evidence for case as their portal prevented any appeal documents from being uploaded properly). Only operator evidence provided was photos of car entering/exiting and letters sent to keeper - no photos of signage current or from date of incident. If there was any subsequent evidence provided which assessor saw, who does not make clear what evidence was or source, then it has not been made available to appellant.

POPLA assessment and decision
xx/03/2019

Verification Code
xxxx

Decision - Unsuccessful

Assessor Name - Stuart Lumsden

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to the appellant parking for longer than the time paid for.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has not submitted grounds for appeal, rather uploaded their grounds after the appeal was raised, as such I am unable to take this into account.

(My comments added in: This is shocking - despite assurances by POPLA that appeal and rebuttal comments would be attached to case - this assessor contradicts these assertions. Had to raise a complaint with POPLA to say their portal was not uploading properly, after found out by accident portal had not uploaded PDF document properly. POPLA conceded in email that they are having issues with their portal. This assessor completely dismisses appeal provided by appellant because it was not supplied at time of appeal, even though clearly it has been acknowledged by POPLA there were problems with its own appeals portal.)

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The appellant has identified as the driver of the vehicle on the day of the parking event. As such, I am considering the appellant’s liability for the PCN, as the driver.
(my comment - WRONG - Not sure what evidence assessor thinks there is to say appellant has identified as driver themselves or been identified by operator - there is no evidence provided by NCP in their evidence pack. Strongly stated by appellant in appeal document and appeal letters that no confirmation of who driver is. If there was any subsequent evidence after pack submission provided by NCP, it was not made available to appellant. Assessor does not say what this evidence is based on or where it came from).

When entering onto a private car park such as this one, any motorist forms a contract with the operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage in place sets out the terms and conditions of this contract.
(WRONG - old signage from previous operator still in place - no evidence provided by NCP to dispute that - appellant has never seen any photo evidence provided by operator of any of their signage - and assessor has not even considered this point as he refused to include or consider appellant's appeal and rebuttal comments due to POPLA's technical failure.)

The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park
(my comment - WRONG - when has NCP provided evidence of signage at any point? Not provided evidence to me of current signage or of signage on day in question, when signage was not completed in changeover - no evidence in NCP pack)

[carpark] which states: “A Parking Charge Notice (PCN) may be issued for failure to comply with the Terms and Conditions, this includes the following breaches: Failure to pay all the charges due for your parking…PCN charges paid after 14 days £100”. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle, entering the car park at 14:48, and exiting at 16:19, totalling a stay of 1 hour 31 minutes. The operator has provided evidence to demonstrate that the appellant only paid for 1 hours worth of parking.

{VERY QUESTIONABLE PART}
The appellant has not submitted grounds for appeal, rather uploaded their grounds after the appeal was raised, as such I am unable to take this into account. POPLA is an evidence-based appeals service. All appeals are decided using the evidence and statements from the appellant and the parking operator, using the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice as guidance for an expectation of minimum standards .

I will however address the operators evidence pack to establish if the PCN was issued correctly. Upon review of the evidence pack provided by the operator there is clear and legible signage throughout the car park (WRONG - no signage photos in evidence pack I had access to).

I find this more than adequate to alert the motorist of parking terms and conditions. Furthermore, there is clear evidence that the appellant paid for 1 hour of parking via {her - WRONG - should not assume appellant is driver) phone, thus acknowledging that there are terms and conditions of parking. The operator has provided evidence to show that the appellant did not pay for any further parking, via way of it’s database which shows motorist’s Vehicle Registration Numbers (VRN).

If the appellant did pay for further parking, then I can reliably say that they failed to input the correct VRN when doing so and thusly breached the terms and conditions of parking.

When looking at appeals, POPLA considers whether a parking contract was formed and, if so, whether the motorist kept to the conditions of the contract.
(WRONG - poor signage left from old operator which left driver unaware of ANPR cameras had been installed or a new contract had been formed with landowner by new operator)

POPLA cannot allow an appeal if a contract was formed and the motorist did not keep to the parking conditions. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. Upon consideration of the evidence, the appellant did not comply with the terms and conditions by failing to pay for the whole period of parking. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

(My comments added: Standard response without considering evidence provided by appellant, as assessor refused to admit appellant's evidence based on a technicality, which POPLA should have resolved when POPLA at fault due to their technical failure.)


On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 12:05 PM POPLA Complaints <complaints@popla.co.uk> wrote:
Dear xxxx,

Your complaint about POPLA

Thank you for your email dated 15 February 2019, which was passed to me by the POPLA team as I am responsible for responding to complaints.

I note from your correspondence that you are unhappy with the POPLA process as you have found it frustrating and unnecessarily time consuming.

I can confirm that we have been experiencing issues with the POPLA website which is currently being investigated by the IT department as a high priority. It seems that you have been having issues due to this, which I would like to apologise for.

I note you have complained about the fact that you are concerned that your email with comments provided on a PDF document in rebuttal of the evidence pack will not be found.

There have been high volumes of work received recently which has impacted on our response efficiencies.

I can confirm that the email in question has been found and attached to your appeal and a member of the team responded to confirm that this was the case on 21 February 2019. As such it will be ready for the assessor during the decision making process.

I would again like to apologise for the issues with the website, your comments have been fed back and hopefully we will have a resolution ASAP.

In closing, I am sorry that your experience of using our service has not been positive. We have reached the end of our process and my response now concludes our complaints procedure. I trust you will appreciate that there will be no further review of your complaint and it will not be appropriate for us to respond to any further correspondence on this matter.

Yours sincerely,

Amy Smith

POPLA Complaints Team



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Mon, 22 Apr 2019 - 17:40
Post #28


Member


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



There have been high volumes of work received recently which has impacted on our response efficiencies.

Are the companies having a feeding frenzy, issuing dodgy Parking Notices and rejecting valid appeals before the new legislation bites ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
oh-no-not-anothe...
post Tue, 23 Apr 2019 - 07:41
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 17 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,442



If anyone can help suggest how to draft a response to operator and debt collector to put their pursuit of charge on hold/call off debt letters while POPLA stage being investigated - would be gratefully received!!
Also any suggestions who to write to next and what to say about getting POPLA appeal reviewed for not reviewing it properly in first place - also would be gratefully received - Many thanks!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Tue, 23 Apr 2019 - 08:04
Post #30


Member


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



That letter comes as close to POPLA accepting a complaint about itself as I've ever seen

You could forward Amy's email to NCP with the additional note
Include her in the circulation

Dear Sir

Ref ****

Please note the message below from POPLA confirming that it had mislaid my evidence pack and the case will be reassessed

Its rejection of my appeal dated **** must now be regarded as invalid

Please cease your debt collection procedures immediately
If you have already passed the account to a debt collection agent, please instruct it not to contact me

Thank You and Regards


This post has been edited by Redivi: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 - 08:06
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
oh-no-not-anothe...
post Tue, 23 Apr 2019 - 12:27
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 17 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,442



Thanks Redivi for your suggestion - much appreciated!

I think my MP included the Amy response in her letter to NCP's Ceo office, which only elicited a reply that it was nothing to do with them as it was an independent POPLA process, so they would not be cancelling the PCN, although they minimally acknowledged it as a possible issue which needed to be taken up with Ombudsman Service (of course still waiting for their reply, even an acknowledgement).

Also equally annoying, despite numerous requests in my direct appeal letters to NCP and the SAR request, never once did they supply to me signage evidence of any sort, neither were there any photos in the evidence pack I saw (although miraculously the assessor alludes to them - so I presume he was privy to something I wasn't). However, surprise, some photos showed up in NCP's reply to my MP, but still these provided no evidence to dispute that they still had old, misleading signage from the previous operator in situ which is what the driver saw on the material date, and consequently left unaware ANPR had been newly installed.

These photos, which still have not been supplied to me, had a machine display dating them to 3 months after the day in question, and were printed on paper with a July 2017 date stamp, which is amazing, considering they didn't take over the site until December 2017. Also supplied to my MP but not me, despite requests, is a pitiful attempt at 'contract' evidence with the landowner by simply supplying HM Land Registry registration of their lease of the site (Jan 2018).

But I will have a go with your response to NCP complaints and stress it would be reasonable of them to suspend (i.e. unreasonable of them not in a court's view).

I will also try John Gallagher again, asking why I've not had a response to my complaint, and cc in the Ombudsman chief and BPA guy, and anyone else relevant I can think of.

Any further advice always welcome!! Thanks.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
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: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 18:44
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