PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Euro Car Parks ANPR PCN, Last couple of days for POPLA :(
Benny.T
post Wed, 11 Apr 2018 - 13:28
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 214
Joined: 2 Jun 2015
Member No.: 77,551



Hi all,

I am helping a friend of mine with their PCN received from ECP. Essentially, the car park 'rules' state that you must enter your reg number in the restaurant computer system as evidence you are visiting the restaurant. The person involved's vehicle was parked in the car park for approx. 30 minutes while they went into the restaurant, the was a long wait for tables, so ultimately went elsewhere (without entering their reg number)

ANPR PCN followed (see attached)

We did a robust appeal using advice for similar situations I had seen on Pepipoo, and received the automated response from ECP. So now we need a POPLA argument to use for that appeal.

I'm fairly certain that the initial PCN was non-compliant, but would like to have others' thoughts on the matter and what to include in the POPLA appeal

Thanks in advance!

Benny

This post has been edited by Benny.T: Wed, 11 Apr 2018 - 15:09
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
 

Attached File(s)
Attached File  PDF_Ticket_Redacted.pdf ( 223.48K ) Number of downloads: 30
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 37)
Advertisement
post Wed, 11 Apr 2018 - 13:28
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
ostell
post Tue, 17 Apr 2018 - 11:05
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,794
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Look at the dates on ALL the documents, they contradict each other.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Benny.T
post Tue, 17 Apr 2018 - 11:18
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 214
Joined: 2 Jun 2015
Member No.: 77,551



Yep I'm with you I think - I will draft something at lunch time and post on here for comment smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Benny.T
post Tue, 17 Apr 2018 - 11:50
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 214
Joined: 2 Jun 2015
Member No.: 77,551



QUOTE (ostell @ Tue, 17 Apr 2018 - 12:05) *
Look at the dates on ALL the documents, they contradict each other.




I assume you are referring to the "issue date" being the 17/01/18 on PCN, and 10/01/18 on the NTK?

What is the impact of this mix up of dates?

If there's anything else not matching please do let me know


I'm guessing that the dates being different might cast doubt on whether the PCN is a genuine document? They are saying that a PCN was issued at the exact point (Date of issue stated as 10/01/18 and time issued stated as 21:20:55) that the car left the car park in the NTK, yet the PCN states an issue date of 17/01/18



Just another thought - if it WAS issued on the 17th, how on earth did they get the RK details from DVLA in 1 day??
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 17 Apr 2018 - 12:15
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,232
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



There is no distinction between PCN and NTK

A Parking Charge Notice to Keeper is a Parking Charge Notice to Keeper. NtK is just a handy abbreviation. Stop making a difference.

Electronic link, access is immediate.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Benny.T
post Tue, 17 Apr 2018 - 12:23
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 214
Joined: 2 Jun 2015
Member No.: 77,551



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Tue, 17 Apr 2018 - 13:15) *
There is no distinction between PCN and NTK

A Parking Charge Notice to Keeper is a Parking Charge Notice to Keeper. NtK is just a handy abbreviation. Stop making a difference.

Electronic link, access is immediate.


I think we already cleared that up smile.gif I'm referring to them that way to make it easier to distinguish which document I'm talking about

we have requested from DVLA the access request info including date. Be interesting to see when this was, especially if not on the 17th

PCN being 17/1/18 document

NTK being 2/2/18 document
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 17 Apr 2018 - 12:27
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,232
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Dont call them that as the term is just confusing. As you can see!

The one you received call that "the real document"
The one they made up call that "the fake document"

The issue date can of course be different on each, and that doesnt tell you one way or the other which is more likely correct

However the FACT you only received one, it looks NOTHING like the one they supposedly sent only two weeks earlier, and the one they supposedly sent corrects errors in POFA that the later one has, means ON THE BALANCE of probabilities the operator is the liar here.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Benny.T
post Tue, 17 Apr 2018 - 12:36
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 214
Joined: 2 Jun 2015
Member No.: 77,551



Is it worth mentioning examples of non-compliance in the 'real' document compared to the 'fake' one, thus proving the point you made about them making a new POFA compliant NTK?

An obvious one being that the 'real' document doesn't state the time the vehicle was parked (from time A to time B), whereas the 'fake' document does?

The 'real' document has a 'time observed' (which is the entry time per the 'fake' document), and an 'issue time' (which is the exit time per the 'fake' document)

The 'fake' document has specific entry and exit times, as well as the dates of these two times. The 'real' document doesn't include the date in the same manner, if that makes any difference
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 17 Apr 2018 - 12:54
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,232
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



You can do that
Just make it very, very clear in your LIMITED space (bullet points) that this document is clearly fake
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Benny.T
post Tue, 17 Apr 2018 - 16:23
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 214
Joined: 2 Jun 2015
Member No.: 77,551



OK, I have had a go at drafting the points for the appeal. Currently 2400 characters, so need to work on trimming it down a little. Thanks in advance for any thoughts

_____

EDIT: New, more concise appeal draft posted below

_____



This post has been edited by Benny.T: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 - 18:15
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eljayjay
post Tue, 17 Apr 2018 - 16:47
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 689
Joined: 1 Apr 2017
Member No.: 91,235



You can ask DVLA for all instances since a given date, e.g. the date on which you first received the PCN.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Benny.T
post Tue, 17 Apr 2018 - 18:17
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 214
Joined: 2 Jun 2015
Member No.: 77,551



HAHAHA I've just noticed that they have put in an extract of the contract which allows them to operate in the car park. However, this is for a Mitchel and Butler pub in Liverpool, not the Harvester in Sidcup!! Gotcha?






I refer to the PCN dated 17/1/18 (PCN) which was never received by myself, and the NTK dated 2/2/18, which I did receive
Based on the following points, I conclude that ECP have either tried to deceive POPLA, never sent vital documents, or have fabricated documents as part of the POPLA Evidence Pack (EP) provided to prevent myself from having time to fully defend this parking charge notice

1) The two documents provided in ECP’s EP are of an entirely different format; the NTK lacking in POFA 2012 Sch 4 (POFA) compliance, and the PCN that ECP have gone to great lengths to prove is POFA compliant (despite it failing to satisfy Paragraph 10). Why was the NTK so blatantly non-compliant in comparison?
2) The NTK did not provide the period of parking, only Time Observed 20:49:09. They then issued a PCN at 21:20:55 on 10/1/18; the wording of the NTK implies that the PCN was issued at the issue time and date per the NTK. In contrast, the parking period is clearly set out on the PCN
3) Notice of Rejection states issue date as being 10/01/18, yet the PCN is 17/1/18
4) The photo evidence was missing in the NTK, therefore giving an easy opportunity to appeal on the grounds of not POFA Para 10 compliant, but photos were included in the EP and PCN
5) The photos provided by ECP in the EP don’t show the location of the vehicle, therefore the requirements of POFA Para 10 could not possibly be met had the PCN been sent
6) The NTK does not reference directly the PCN, therefore putting into question whether or not this document even existed when the NTK was sent; I would expect a sentence to the effect of ‘in reference to the PCN dated 17/1/18’ or ‘reminder’ to be a part of the NTK to directly in reference to it, as well as details such as issue date matching
7) This puts into question whether or not my vehicle was at “The Horse & Groom” on that date, or whether the photos were taken at another location entirely and a fraudulent PCN issued based on events which did not occur
8) Can ECP prove that the Keeper details were requested on or before 17/1/18?

This post has been edited by Benny.T: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 - 20:36
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 18 Apr 2018 - 08:31
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,232
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



1) WHy doesnt this start with "They have included a NtK that was never received, and in fact looks to be a complete fabrication"? You have to state this is NOT a document you received!

YOu need to state that the contract to operate appears to be of a different location. AS such they have not proven they have authority to operate, and the appeal must beupheld on this pooint alone. You need to be concise...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Benny.T
post Wed, 18 Apr 2018 - 10:22
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 214
Joined: 2 Jun 2015
Member No.: 77,551



Thanks, have amended the wording to make those bits more clear. Do you think it's ready to submit?

_____

ECP have included a PCN/NTK dated 17/1/18 (PCN) which I have NOT received and in fact looks to be fabricated, and the NTK dated 2/2/18 (NTK), which I did receive
Based on the following points, I conclude that ECP have either tried to deceive POPLA, never sent vital documents, or fabricated documents for the POPLA Evidence Pack (EP) to prevent myself from having time to fully defend this PCN
1) Fabricated contract to operate –contract is with MB Liverpool site, not Sidcup site. PCN must be cancelled on this point alone; no authority to operate
2) The two documents provided in ECP’s EP are of an entirely different format; the NTK lacking in POFA 2012 Sch 4 (POFA) compliance, and the PCN that ECP have gone to great lengths to prove is POFA compliant (despite it failing to satisfy Paragraph 10). Why was the NTK so blatantly non-compliant in comparison?
3) The NTK did not provide the period of parking, only Time Observed 20:49:09. They then issued a PCN at 21:20:55 on 10/1/18; the wording of the NTK implies that the PCN was issued at the issue time and date per the NTK. In contrast the parking period is clearly set out on the PCN
4) Notice of Rejection and Item 5 state issue date as being 10/01/18 yet the PCN issue date is 17/1/18
5) The photo evidence was missing in the NTK, therefore obviously not POFA Para 10 compliant, but photos were included in the EP and PCN
6) The photos provided by ECP in the EP don’t show the location of the vehicle; the requirements of POFA Para 10 could not possibly be met had the PCN been sent
7) The NTK does not reference directly the PCN, therefore putting into question whether the PCN even existed when the NTK was sent; I would expect a sentence to the effect of ‘in reference to the PCN dated 17/1/18’ or ‘reminder’ to be a part of the NTK, as well as details such as issue date matching
8) This puts into question whether my vehicle was at “The Horse & Groom” on that date, or whether photos were taken at another location and a fraudulent PCN issued
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 18 Apr 2018 - 10:32
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,232
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



not the site the parking charge notice was issued at... State as such they have not demonstrated they have a contract to operate at the site in question.

Its still too complex
Just state that you rebut that the NtK dated X was ever served, and you have never received this document. State you have the reasonable belief this doucment was NEVER sent, because it has an entirely different format to the later document, and in fact is MORE compliant with POFA thn the later document. On the balance of probabitilies, with evidence from the appellant that the document was NOT served, as well as the fact that you would not send out two documents so close together, of entirely different formats, and the latter one to have different details, the only conclusion is that the document submitted by ECP as being an NtK of X date was never sent out.

Its too many bullet points about the differences between the real and fake NtK! All these differences do not matter in detail - youre showing this document was never ever received by you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Benny.T
post Thu, 19 Apr 2018 - 10:54
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 214
Joined: 2 Jun 2015
Member No.: 77,551



How about like this?


ECP have included a PCN/NTK dated 17/1/18 (PCN) which I have NOT received and in fact looks to be fabricated, and the NTK dated 2/2/18 (NTK) which I did receive

I rebut that the PCN dated 17/1/18 was ever served, and I have not received the document. I have the reasonable belief that this document was never sent, because it is an entirely different format to the NTK dated 2/2/18, and is in fact suspiciously more compliant than the later document. The NTK dated 2/2/18 doesn’t include the period of observation, has no photo evidence, and was sent outside the 14 day timeframe required by POFA. It also makes no reference to the previous PCN nor does it state that it is a reminder letter, indicating that there was never a PCN dated 17/1/18 and that this was ECP’s first correspondence

Having already sent out a “compliant” PCN on 17/1/18, why would ECP then send out an obviously non-compliant NTK? It is more likely that they never sent this document, or have fabricated the PCN for POPLA

The NTK, Notice of Rejection and Item 5 state the issue date as being 10/01/18 yet the PCN issue date is 17/1/18 further supporting the fact that the PCN is fabricated, perhaps using data from another person’s PCN; I draw your attention to the references to Mr Wood, a hotel, and a 1 hour 14 minute stay in item 5

On the balance of probabilities, with evidence from the myself that the document was not served, as well as the fact that you would not send out two documents so close together, of entirely different formats, and the latter one to have different details, the only conclusion is that the document submitted by ECP as being an NTK dated 17/1/18 was never sent out

Finally, ECP have provided a contract to act for a site in Liverpool (Figure 4), not the site the PCN was issued at. As such they have not demonstrated they have a contract to operate at the site in question, have falsely misrepresented their authority based on that contract; had the PCN dated 17/1/18 been served, it must be cancelled on this point alone


Figure 5 extract:
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Benny.T
post Fri, 20 Apr 2018 - 13:48
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 214
Joined: 2 Jun 2015
Member No.: 77,551



Any changes to make? Deadline for POPLA is fast approaching

Thanks!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Benny.T
post Wed, 23 May 2018 - 10:13
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 214
Joined: 2 Jun 2015
Member No.: 77,551



POPLA haven't assessed this, despite it being with them for a month now. Is that normal?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Macapaca
post Wed, 23 May 2018 - 10:19
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 261
Joined: 10 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,458



Yes it can typically take longer than a month.
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: Wednesday, 22nd August 2018 - 05:50
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.