Successful POPLA appeal - and a thank you! |
Successful POPLA appeal - and a thank you! |
Fri, 27 Sep 2019 - 08:16
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17 Joined: 3 Jun 2019 Member No.: 104,130 |
A few months ago I sought advice here for a parking notice received from Private Parking Solutions whilst driver had stopped to deliver some flat pack furniture to my buy-to-let flat. The car is registered to my ex-partner, who upon receipt of the NTK, named me as the keeper (but not the driver). I declined to name the driver.
I appealed citing Jopson v Homeguard, prohibiting contract and failure to issue NTK within 56 days (I received a Notice to Driver rather than a NTK - and it was after 62 days.) POPLA upheld my appeal on grounds that PPS failed to comply with PoFA by pursuing me and not the registered keeper. Decision notice below: ‘The operator has issued the PCN to the registered keeper who has named the appellant as the keeper of the vehicle, not the driver. The appellant has not confirmed to POPLA or the operator that they were the driver and therefore liability should have been transferred back to the registered keeper. The operator has continued to pursue the appellant, incorrectly. Therefore, the operator has not complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. It is not necessary to assess the remaining grounds of appeal.’ I was a little surprised as I thought under PoFA the keeper doesn’t have to be the registered keeper if evidence is provided - which it was in this case. I don’t know whether my other grounds had any merit. Nevertheless I am extremely happy I have won and would like to say a big thank you to ostell, Jlc and Lynnzer who gave me excellent advice. I’m now helping a family member appeal a parking notice received in the car park of the gym to which she pays a considerable amount every month... This post has been edited by Mermaid37: Fri, 27 Sep 2019 - 09:20 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Fri, 27 Sep 2019 - 08:16
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Fri, 27 Sep 2019 - 08:50
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
THis should go on your existing thread. Click your username.
POPLA was, shockingly, wrong. Theyre barely literate. |
|
|
Fri, 27 Sep 2019 - 09:18
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17 Joined: 3 Jun 2019 Member No.: 104,130 |
I clicked on my user name but the original post didn’t appear.
I didn’t think that was correct. I’m a little disappointed that the other grounds weren’t considered, especially as I spent quite a lot of time whilst on holiday constructing the appeal... |
|
|
Fri, 27 Sep 2019 - 09:34
Post
#4
|
||||
Webmaster Group: Root Admin Posts: 8,205 Joined: 30 Mar 2003 From: Wokingham, UK Member No.: 2 |
I clicked on my user name but the original post didn’t appear. To see all your threads you can click on the drop-down next to your username and select Find Member's Topics. Your original thread is here. -------------------- Regards,
Fredd __________________________________________________________________________
|
|||
|
||||
Fri, 27 Sep 2019 - 20:46
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
I’m a little disappointed that the other grounds weren’t considered, especially as I spent quite a lot of time whilst on holiday constructing the appeal... Why, it’s perfectly normal for both POPLA and the statutory tribunals to stop once they accept one appeal point, there is no value in considering the rest after all, one appeal point accepted or 20 makes no difference it’s still accepted. -------------------- 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 |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 02:26 |