Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Grosvenor Casino Leicester - Premier Park, evidence rubuttle help
FightBack Forums > Queries > Private Parking Tickets & Clamping
PDogg89
Hi Guys,
Sorry about the long post basically I had a PCN for the above location back in August through the post read threads from darkstar and keeper1 and submitted the following appeal.

POPLA Code:
Re: Premier Park Ltd PCN

Dear POPLA Adjudicator

I write as keeper of the vehicle registration to appeal the above PCN issued by Premier Park (“Premier”) on the following grounds:

1. Notice to Keeper not compliant with PoFA
2. No proof of authority to manage the car park
3. Inadequate signage

1. Notice to Keeper not compliant with PoFA
The driver has not been identified as per the requirements of PoFA 2012. Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 of PoFA states the Notice to Keeper must;

“9(2)(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 Notice to Keeper issued states “If within 29 days we have not received full payment or driver details, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, we have the right, subject to the requirements of the Act, to recover the parking charge amount that remains unpaid from the keeper of the vehicle. “

Premier Park has not fully met the requirements of PoFA as by informing it can seek to recover payment after 29 days. The wording “within 29 days” is certainly not compliant with the PoFA and differs from the prescribed, mandatory timeline the statute requires the operator to give. Here is how Premier’s 29 days is not the same as PoFA’s period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given.

PoFA:
As stated on the Notice to Keeper, it was issued on Friday 04/08/17 and assuming it was posted on the same day. The date it was “given” is presumed to be the second working day after the day on which it is posted per Schedule 4 Paragraph 9 (6) unless the contrary is proved, which means date given is Tuesday 08/08/17. 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given is therefore from Wednesday 09/08/17 to Tuesday 05/09/17, so the first day that Premier has the right to recover from the keeper, which is the day after the 28 days period beginning the day after the Notice to Keeper was given, is Wednesday 06/09/17.

Premier:
Notice to Keeper was issued on Friday 04/08/17, “within 29 days”, depending on the interpretation of the word “within” it can either be Friday 04/08/17 to Friday 01/09/16, or beginning the day following date of issue which is Saturday 05/08/17 to Saturday 02/09/17 inclusively. The first day after the 29 days is therefore Sunday 03/09/17 on which Premier claims it can hold the keeper liable.

It is clear that Premier is attempting to claim keeper liability 3 days too soon, therefore the Notice to Keeper was not compliant.


As the notice to keeper is not complaint due to trying to claim keeper liability too early no keeper liability can actually be established.

In order to rely upon PoFA to hold a vehicle's keeper liable for unpaid parking charges, an operator must deliver a Notice to Keeper that fully complies with all of PoFA’s strict requirements.

I set out below further reasons why Premier Park’s Notice to Keeper failed to do so.

 Contrary to the requirements of Schedule 4 Paragraph 9 (2) (a), the Notice to Keeper did not specify the period of parking to which the notice relates, but merely the times when the vehicle entered and exited the car park, which do not equate to period of parking.
 Contrary to the requirements of Schedule 4 Paragraph 9 (2) (e), the Notice to Keeper does not state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper— (i)to pay the unpaid parking charges.
 Contrary to the requirements of Schedule 4 Paragraph 9 (2) (i), the Notice to Keeper does not state the date on which the notice is sent by post.

Consequently, Premier has forfeited its right to use the provisions of PoFA to claim unpaid parking charges from me as the vehicle’s keeper.

Should Premier try to suggest that there is any other method whereby a vehicle’s keeper can be held liable for a charge where a driver is not identified, I draw POPLA’s attention to the guidance given to operators in POPLA's 2015 Annual Report by Henry Greenslade, Chief Adjudicator in which he reminded them of a keeper's right not to name the driver whilst still not being held liable for an unpaid parking charge under Schedule 4 of POFA. Although I trust that POPLA's assessors are already very familiar with the contents of this report, for ease of reference I set out a link as follows:

https://popla.co.uk/docs/default-source/def...15.pdf?sfvrsn=2

I draw POPLA’s particular attention to the section entitled “Keeper Liability” in which Mr. Greenslade explains that:

“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.......
.......... However keeper information is obtained, 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”.

2. No proof of authority to manage the car park
I do not believe that Premier Park has any proprietary interest in the land such that it has no standing to make contracts with drivers in its own right, or to pursue charges for breach in its own name. In the absence of such title, Premier Park must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at Court level.

I contend that Premier Park merely holds a basic licence to supply and maintain (non-compliant) signs and to post out 'tickets' as a deterrent to car park users. I therefore require Premier Park to provide POPLA and me with an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract that it holds with the landowner. This is required so that I may be satisfied that this contract permits Premier Park to make contracts with drivers in its own right and provides it with full authority to pursue charges, including a right to pursue them in Court in its own name.

For the avoidance of doubt, a witness statement to the effect that a contract is or was in place will not be sufficient to provide the necessary detail of the contract terms (such as revenue sharing, genuine intentions of these restrictions and charges, set amounts to charge for each stated contravention, etc.).

3. Inadequate signage
Although Premier is aware that the British Parking Association Code of Practice requires that terms on car park entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead, the signs in this particular car park were not sufficiently clear to give proper notice to the driver.

In circumstances where the terms of a notice are not negotiable (as is the case with the car park signage) and where there is any ambiguity or contradiction in those terms, the rule of contra proferentem shall apply against the party responsible for writing those terms. This is confirmed within the Consumer Rights Act 2015 including;

Paragraph 68: Requirement for Transparency

(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.

(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

Paragraph 69: Contract terms that may have different meanings

(1) If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.

I have reason to believe that the signs at this car particular park were inadequate, including that;

 The signs at the entrance to the car park are obscured by a nearby building and difficult to read from a vehicle.
 There are no signs at the entrance to the car park to confirm that the driver is entering a zone where immediate cost is being incurred.
 Another problem with the sign is that the information regarding any contravention leading to a fine is too small and illegible from a vehicle.
 Contrary to the requirement of Paragraph 18.10 of the BPA Code of Practice, there was not one sign that could be read without needing to leave the vehicle.

I require from Premier contemporaneous photographic evidence of all of the car park signs, including details of the height at which each of the signs was positioned and the font size of the various wording upon the signs.


Based upon the above points, I respectfully request that my appeal is allowed.

Kindest regards,



Getting a bit worried as well as in some threads that schoolrunmum has been involved in it seems some inexperienced popla assessors are letting the 29 day thing slide.
I have the following pack of evidence submitted back to me (4 copies of the same back seem to have been submitted on the popla portal), redacted all the personal bits on PDF where possible. Thanks nosfetaru regarding the first steps below is my initial evidence rebuttal. A copy of the original PCN is on page 4.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5rGh0j0Wk...ew?usp=drivesdk


Evidence rebuttal:
Page 2: No date provided when the signage was approved by BPA auditing team and could easily have been amended since approval without a date.
Page 3: As the registered keeper I do have a casino membership but if I argue this point will they take this as admission of being the driver? The time the driver was on site was 15mins.
Page 6 no mention about the POFA requirement for keep liability just a comment that says PCN states “29 days” doesn’t mean much and just inforces point 1 in my initial appeal. This proves the point that the operator failed to compy with POFA as they have not said anything about my substantiative point that the wording fails to comply with the mandatory wording of POFA.
Page 15/16/17/18/19: Just a pdf of the signs doesn’t show how they look in the context.
Page 20: Sign is not legible on the photograph.
Page 21: Sign is only legible when close up as the pic was taken no way can that be seen from the drivers side of the car.??
Page 22 doesn’t show much.
Page 23: sign could be at any premier car park.
Page 24 sign not legible.
Page 25: sign could be at any premier car park.
Page 26: sign not legible at the entrance and is probably the closest pic of sign from drivers view inside the car.
Page 27/28/29 30 are just close up pictures of the payment machine which don’t mean much in relation to the points raised in my appeal.
Page 31: Same as page 21 : Sign is only legible when close up as the pic was taken no way can that be seen from the drivers side of the car.??
Page 32/33/34: Impossible for the signs to read.
Page 35: sign could be at any premier car park. Number looks like a premium rate number.
Page 36/37/38: Impossible for the signs to read.
Page 39: Sign not readable from the car.
Page 40/41 Signs not legible page 41 sign cannot even be read when zooming in on PDF.
Page 42: sign could be at any premier car park.
Page 43-47 pictures from what looks to be inside the casino.
Page 48 shows the side as gala clubs and Grosvenor casino which site is it.
Page 49-54 night time pictures of site prove my point regarding clear signage not a single one can be read on any of these pages.
Page 55: Extremely close up picture cannot be read from the car.
Page 56-59 night time pictures of site prove my point regarding clear signage not a single one can be read on any of these pages.
Page 61: Redacting the names for confidentiality is not smart, the agreement is signed by the company secretary and information is registered with companies house and is public. By omitting the name and signature cannot verify on companies house if it is indeed the company secretary that has signed the document. Rank group is mentioned extremely confusing as to who the landowner is now is it Grosvenor casinos? Rank group? or gala clubs?
Page 63: B) No mention of authority to pursue outstanding parking charges.
Page 67/68: 3.1.1 No mention of authority to pursue outstanding parking charges.
Page 69 ineligible/redacted
Page 70: 6.4 No mention of authority to pursue outstanding parking charges.
Page 72/73: Inelgible/redacted.
Page 75/76: Inelgible.
Page 81: Signed by company secretary but witness signatures not present. Company law sates when a single Director is signing a document a witness signature is required unless 2 directors sign it. Company secretary for Grosvenor Casinos GC limited on companies house is listed as BINGHAM, Frances based on the signature bits viewable that doesn’t look like the name signed to me.
Contract between landowner and operator:
Section 7.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice sets out to parking operators that “if you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you authority to carry out all aspects of car park management for the site you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges.”
I note the contract does not state that the operator has the authority to “pursue outstanding parking charges”. It is the responsibility of the operator to provide POPLA with sufficient evidence in order to rebut the appellant’s claims and prove that it issued the PCN correctly. I am not satisfied that the operator has my grounds for appeal.


Any thoughts on the above would be extremely. Last bit was taken by keeper1's assessor comment for allowing appeal.
nosferatu1001
Well dont identify the driver, for a start.

I couldnt read that orange text without a headache. Sorry

Rebuttals need to be short and to the point.
PDogg89
Thanks again nosferatu will scrap the page 3 thing. Will condense the pages down where the same points apply.
nosferatu1001
Maybe change the colour of the text as well...
PDogg89
Apologies the colour was to separate the initial appeal and the rebuttal with my comment. See revised rebuttal based on the advice below:

Evidence rebuttal:
Page 2: No date provided when the signage was approved by BPA auditing team and could easily have been amended since approval without a date. No certificate or letter of approval has been attached with the evidence pack either.
Page 6 no mention about the POFA requirement for keeper liability just a comment that says PCN states “29 days” doesn’t mean much and just inforces point 1 in my initial appeal. This proves the point that the operator failed to compy with POFA as they have not said anything about my substantiative point that the wording fails to comply with the mandatory wording of POFA.
Page 15-19: Just a pdf of the signs doesn’t show how they look in the context of the actual car park.
Page 20/24/32/33/34/36/37/38/40/41: Sign is not legible on the photograph. Page 26: sign not legible at the entrance and is probably the closest pic of sign from drivers view inside the car.Page 41 sign cannot be read even when zooming in on the PDF.
Page 21/31/39/55: Sign is only legible when close up as the pic was taken, there no way can that text can be seen from the driver’s side of the car let alone from inside the car.
Page 22 doesn’t show much.
Page 23/25/35/42: sign could be at any premier car park. Page 35 also looks like a premium rate phone number.
Page 27/28/29 30 are just close up pictures of the payment machine which don’t mean much in relation to the points raised in my appeal.
Page 43-47 pictures from what looks to be inside the casino.
Page 48 shows the site as gala clubs and Grosvenor casino which site is it.
Page 49-54 and 56-59: night time pictures of site prove my point regarding clear signage not a single one can be read on any of these pages.
Page 61: Redacting the names for confidentiality is not smart, the agreement is signed by the company secretary and information is registered with companies house and is public. By omitting the name and signature cannot verify on companies house if it is indeed the company secretary that has signed the document. Rank group is mentioned extremely confusing as to who the landowner is now is it Grosvenor casinos? Rank group? or gala clubs?
Page 63: Section B), Page 67/68 3.11 and Page 70: 6.4 No mention of authority to pursue outstanding parking charges.
Page 69/72/73/75/76: ineligible/redacted
Page 81: Signed by company secretary but witness signatures not present. Company law sates when a single Director is signing a document a witness signature is required unless 2 directors sign it. Company secretary for Grosvenor Casinos GC limited on companies house is listed as BINGHAM, Frances based on the signature bits viewable that doesn’t look like the name signed to me.
Contract between landowner and operator:
Section 7.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice sets out to parking operators that “if you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you authority to carry out all aspects of car park management for the site you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges.”
I note the contract does not state anywhere that the operator has the authority to “pursue outstanding parking charges”. It is the responsibility of the operator to provide POPLA with sufficient evidence in order to rebut the appellant’s claims and prove that it issued the PCN correctly. I am not satisfied that the operator has answered my grounds for appeal.
nosferatu1001
I would tie your responses into directly your appeal points - e.g. page 63...as per appeal point X I raised the operator has not shown sufficient authority to operate
The Rookie
Page 48, don't ask a question, state its not clear which site they mean.

Overall too much 'plain English' for example
no mention about the POFA requirement for keeper liability just a comment that says PCN states “29 days” doesn’t mean much and just inforces point 1 in my initial appeal.

There is no mention of Keeper liability (through the use of POFA). The '29 days' comment has no meaning in this respect.
PDogg89
Thanks for that, longed out putting the details on here so appreciate the response but the evidence was sent after 4pm last Wednesday, so submitted comments yesterday just before midnight.

Based on some of the cases I have read it seems that some of the newer assessors are letting the 29 day thing slide which is concerning, I think its gonna be pot luck whether the appeal is upheld or not.
Will let you guys know as soon as I know.
nosferatu1001
You just have to make it absolultely crystal clear, in words of one syllable, how it DOES NOT comply

This isnt binding on you. If the appeal is rejected, you tell the operator you are rejecting the decision, and that you believe court is now the only option. You require theys end a COMPLIANT letter before action within 14 days, else you will conside the matter closed. You do not consent to data being sent to any third parties, and any debt collecotrs will be their own wasted costs to bear as you will under no circumstances make payment to anyoen without a court ordering it.
PDogg89
Thanks for your help on this one again. Keeping my fingers crossed as hopefully it won't come to that.
PDogg89
As I feared the POPLA person didn't say much about POFA or landowner authority.

Decision: Unsuccessful

Assessor Name: Amy Butler


Assessor summary of operator case:The operator’s case is that the appellant’s parking session had expired or was unpaid.


Assessor summary of your case: The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal. These are as follows; • The appellant states the notice to keeper does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms (PoFA) 2012. • The appellant states the operator has not provided any evidence to show that it has the authority to issue parking charges. • The appellant’s case is that there is inadequate signage at the site. • The appellant states it is not clear that there will be a charge. • The appellant has provided evidence of the parking charge notice.


Assessor supporting rational for decision: The operator has provided photographic evidence of the terms and conditions, as displayed at the site, which states, “Grosvenor Casino Car Park; Public Parking- Please pay for your stay; If you enter or park on this land contravening the terms and conditions displayed, you are agreeing to pay; Parking Charge Notice (PCN) £100”. The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the appellant’s parking session had expired or was unpaid. The operator has provided images from the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system, which shows the appellant’s vehicle, xxx entered the site on 29 July 2017 at 19:32 and exited the site at 19:47. The appellant remained at the site for a period of 15 minutes. The operator has provided a copy of the system print out. This is an online transaction record showing a search for the appellant’s vehicle. From this, I can see that the appellant’s vehicle was not registered against a payment. The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal. I have addressed each of these below. The appellant states the notice to keeper does not comply with PoFA 2012. I have reviewed the Notice to Keeper and I am satisfied that it complies with the relevant requirements of the PoFA 2012. As such, liability has been transferred to the keeper of the vehicle. The appellant states the operator has not provided any evidence to show that it has the authority to issue parking charges. I have reviewed the contract provided by the operator and I am satisfied that the operator has authorisation from the landowner to issue PCN’s on the site. The appellant’s case is that there is inadequate signage at the site. The appellant states it is not clear that there will be a charge. The legality of parking charges has been the subject of a high profile court case, ParkingEye-v-Beavis. Cambridge County Court heard the case initially, handing down a decision in May 2014 that a parking charge of £85 was allowable. It held that the parking charge had the characteristics of a penalty, in the sense in which that expression is conventionally used, but one that was commercially justifiable because it was neither improper in its purpose nor manifestly excessive in its amount. Mr Beavis took the case to the Court of Appeal, which refused the appeal in April 2015, stating that the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable. Mr Beavis further appealed to the Supreme Court, which on 4 November 2015, concluded: “…the £85 charge is not a penalty. Both ParkingEye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient management of customer parking for the retail outlets. The interest of ParkingEye was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin. Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having regard to practice around the United Kingdom, and taking into account the use of this particular car park and the clear wording of the notices.” As such, I must consider whether the signage at this site is sufficient. When doing so, I must first consider the minimum standards set out in section 18 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. Within section 18.1 of the BPA Code of Practice, it states as follows: “You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.” Furthermore, section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states: “You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” As stated, these are the minimum standards that a parking operator must meet when informing motorists of the terms and conditions at a particular site. In addition to this, I note that within PoFA 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given “adequate notice” of the charge. The Act then moved on to define “adequate notice” as follows: (3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) “adequate notice” means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land. Even in circumstances where PoFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own independent assessment of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and PoFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site is sufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist. Therefore, having considered the decision of the Supreme Court decision, I conclude that the parking charge in this instance is allowable. Although the charge may not be a genuine pre-estimate of loss; the signage at the location is clear, the motorist did not keep to the terms and conditions set out on the signage, and the charge is neither extravagant nor unconscionable. While the charge in this instance was £100; this is in the region of the £85 charge decided on by the Supreme Court. 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’s parking session had expired or was unpaid, and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.
nosferatu1001
Did you sp[ell out exactly how it does not comply? You didnt come back to tell us what you actually submitted
The single sentence that "NtK complies" doesnt tell us anything.

If you DID tell them exactly how it does not comply, they must respond with specificity. Othereise its an easy complaint to make to POPLA.
PDogg89
In the evidence rebuttal I submitted the revised one that was in black above doesn't say much about non compliance but refers to point 1 in my initial appeal in blue. In that I gave the workings out of the days based on PP and the days based on POFA requirements. They seem to have chosen to ignore it/not address it.

I went back asking for elaboration on how NTK is compliant and asked where in the contract does it state PP have authority to pursue outstanding parking charges.
nosferatu1001
Who idd you email?

You need to email to the lead assessor.
PDogg89
I emailed in response to the notification for the appeal to popla. It went to info@popla.co.uk.

I asked for elaboration on the two points above. Then I also asked them to reconsider based on the fact I didn't think careful consideration was given to the points.

Ended it asking for information about complaints. Will see what they come back with.
SchoolRunMum
You will get a swift fob off reply, saying their decisions are final and that this is not POPLA's job:

QUOTE
I went back asking for elaboration on how NTK is compliant and asked where in the contract does it state PP have authority to pursue outstanding parking charges.
PDogg89
ohh,
What the lead assessors email again?
In the email not asking for them to turn around the decision just want clarity of how the NTK does comply. They cant not provide information about a complaints procedure after I have asked for it can they?
Below is the email I sent back.

Hi Amy,

Thanks for your email. The decision seems to be based on signage but my main points were regarding the 29 day wording for POFA2012 (which is non compliant) and the operator not having landowner authority to pursue outstanding parking charges doesn't seem to have been taken into consideration. All it states is
that

"The appellant states the notice to keeper does not comply with PoFA 2012. I have reviewed the Notice to Keeper and I am satisfied that it complies with the relevant requirements of the PoFA 2012. As such, liability has been transferred to the keeper of the vehicle. The appellant states the operator has not provided any evidence to show that it has the authority to issue parking charges. I have reviewed the contract provided by the operator and I am satisfied that the operator has authorisation from the landowner to issue PCN’s on the site."

Would it be possible to elaborate how the NTK complies with POFA2012? as I was sure that it didn't based on the points in my POPLA appeal and proved it to be the case. Also would it be possible to point out in the contract between operator and landowner where it states the operator has the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges as I could not see it after reading through it several times. An appeal in February 2017 was upheld for the same car park as the contract did not specifically state the operator had the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges. Obviously there should be some sort of consistency in POPLA decisions especially as the contract is the same as it was dated before this date.


The rest of the assessors comments talk about signage and pre estimation of loss the latter never being mentioned in my appeal points. Out of 1049 words given for the rationale only 95 refer to my two main strongest points. The rest talk about signage, bevis, pre estimation of loss. I am getting the impression that either my first two strongest points were not considered or understood by the assessor and all the focus was given to signage.


Can I request the assessor re-consider points 1 and 2 in my appeal, if not clear on anything please could I have a 4 eye check on the POPLA appeal just so two assessors are happy with the decision and can give some elaboration on my first two points.


If this is not possible is there a complaints procedure for POPLA as I get the feeling not enough careful consideration was given to my appeal.


Kind regards,
nosferatu1001
They can do whatever they wish. Theyre not there for your benefit, after all.
SchoolRunMum
Have a look at the thread:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...08486&st=60

Interesting complaint and you can see John Gallagher's odd 'opinion' about the 29 days, which I will state, IMHO, is plainly WRONG.

Interesting too, to see post #83 from Stix UK, who got a completely different (correct) decision from POPLA about the '29 days' rubbish!

Then there was this PP one which also failed as POPLA Assessor not only decided the NTK was OK, but he delivered the classic finding:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...08912&st=20

QUOTE
The Torbay Council Bye-laws with respect to Tor Bay Harbour defines a
vehicle as:
“vehicle” includes any vehicle propelled on rails, any machinery
on wheels or caterpillar tracks, trailers, caravans and mobile homes
and includes a hovercraft or any other amphibious vehicle”. As this
definition does not describe cars, therefore the land is not subject to
statutory control for the purpose of parking cars (or other vehicles
not in the description) and PoFA 2012 can apply.


Now I know the above drivel doesn't relate to YOUR case, but thought I would show you 2 examples of PP cases where strong complaint emails were sent to John Gallagher, and also show you the rubbish POPLA come out with, and that people don;t just give up & pay here when they get a daft outcome.
PDogg89
Everyone telling me I'm crazy waiting for a small claims thing to come through but everytime i read the POFA2012 bit I'm more sure that anyone who has a tiny bit of legal know how would be able to accept the fact the NTK does not comply it's clear in.black and white.

Got a Pp letter in the post asking for payment. Do i write to PP saying I'm rejecting the POPLA decision now or after their new time period expires mid December?

Also no response from POPLA but will read thru hose threads at lunch and take that approach if I don't here anything on Monday.

Thanks for all your help on this everyone really appreciate it.
nosferatu1001
You can respond now or later. Entirely irrelevant.
You could state that due to the clear error made made by POPLA, it is clear that only court can mediate this dispute any further. As such you do not consent to your data being passed to ANY 3rd party, and require a cmopliant LBA within the next 14 days else you will consider the matter closed.
PDogg89
Ahh legend I will drag it out.
PDogg89
Got the below response from popla on 2/11:

Thank you for your email dated 21 November, 2017 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 decision reached by the assessor in your appeal against Premier Park.



POPLA is an impartial and independent appeals service and we do not act either for the parking operator or the appellant. It is important to explain that it is not our remit to source evidence and documents from either party in support of their submission and our decisions are based on the evidence received from both parties at the time of the appeal. We cannot consider further evidence after the appeal has been completed.



I have reviewed the assessor’s decision and I am satisfied that the outcome reached is correct.

Having reviewed the notice to keeper I can see that the incident was Saturday 29 July, 2017. The operator issued the notice on 4 August, 2017 which is within the required 14 day window laid out in the Protection of Freedom Act (PoFA) 2012. I can further see that all of the other requirements set out within PoFA had been adhered to. I note your concerns that the assessor has not considered PoFA in as much detail as you submitted. However, given that the notice to keeper was deemed compliant; a full review was not required. The assessor’s notation of compliance is sufficient as liability had been transferred correctly.

The contract supplied by the parking operator shows that the agreement was reached on 25 July, 2016. The term of the contract was for an initial period of 18 months to continue until terminated by either party giving no less than two months written notice. Again, the contract is compliant within the strict guidelines set out by the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. Similar to the notice to keeper, the assessor’s notation of compliance is sufficient in this case. The concerns in regard to issuing charges is outlined in Schedule 1 (f) and (g).

As POPLA is a one-stage process, there is no opportunity for you to appeal the decision.



As our involvement in your appeal has now concluded you may wish to pursue matters further. For independent legal advice, please contact Citizens Advice at: www.citizensadvice.org.uk or call 0345 404 05 06 (English) or 0345 404 0505 (Welsh).



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





Eileen Ioannou


I will email the parking operators this week as perthe guidance in nosferatu's earlier post and see what happens.
SchoolRunMum
Standard fob-off, as predicted. Sit tight.
nosferatu1001
Indeed. Does nto address your complaint about POFA at all, with the "deemed compliant" meaning they didnt een look at it again - they couldnt be bothered

POPLA is fast becoming a sham organisation, with as poor a reputation as the IAS.
PDogg89
Just an update looks like Premier Park have passed the fine onto debt collectors, will carry on ignoring the letter till a letter before claim comes through.
SchoolRunMum
As expected, and all the time you get letters from DR Plus or Zenith, etc., you can be sure it's going nowhere fast.
PDogg89
The first letter was from DRP.
Subsequently 3 letters went to my old address - where I am still on the electoral roll. I have only just picked them up today.
The 3rd letter gave me a final chance to pay up to today.

Would I just now sit tight and wait for a letter before claim at either address then report back?
nosferatu1001
As long as you can pick up letters from there EVERY week then you can take the risk that they issue court papers there
Otherwise tell the PPC your new address.
PDogg89
Hadn't heard anything for ages and just got another debt collection letter from dcbl. Should i be worried?
cabbyman
No. Continue to ignore. The important one should be headed Letter before Action or similar.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.