URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
  HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 14023--------------------------------------------------
       Re: PCN - POPLA stage for Parked Without A Valid Permit. Elite
       Parking Management
   DIR By: summer day
       Date: January 19, 2024, 2:49 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       The appeal is in the first post, they didn't name the driver
       #Post#: 14026--------------------------------------------------
       Re: PCN - POPLA stage for Parked Without A Valid Permit. Elite
       Parking Management
   DIR By: Nosy Parker
       Date: January 19, 2024, 3:55 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       If the NTK is not POFA compliant and the driver has not been
       identified then obviously that should have been the main point
       of the appeal.
       But we are where we are. Regardless of the POPLA rule against
       raising new points at the comments stage, I would raise it
       anyway as a comment on the NTK put in evidence.
       Most importantly, remember that a loss at POPLA is not binding
       so it’s important not to give up the POFA point which could be
       important if it’s decided to continue the fight post POPLA. So
       at the very least, change those “I” “me” statements to
       statements about the motorist or driver
       #Post#: 14027--------------------------------------------------
       Re: PCN - POPLA stage for Parked Without A Valid Permit. Elite
       Parking Management
   DIR By: summer day
       Date: January 19, 2024, 4:01 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Will do, thanks
       #Post#: 14032--------------------------------------------------
       Re: PCN - POPLA stage for Parked Without A Valid Permit. Elite
       Parking Management
   DIR By: Nosy Parker
       Date: January 19, 2024, 5:02 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I just looked at the PCN you linked. It only shows the front. So
       it’s possible that there’s correct POFA language on the back.
       But if not, the NTK is not POFA compliant- not so much because
       of the typo “8” for “9” but because it doesn’t contain the
       mandatory warning required by 9(2)(f), which is the same as the
       mandatory wording required by 8(2(f).
       Try to work this into the comments.  Even if it is rejected by
       POPLA you’ll be putting down a marker for the next stage.
       Maybe something like:
       “This is an appeal by the keeper. The driver has not been
       identified. The operator has put into evidence their PCN which
       does not comply with the requirements for keeper liability in
       Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (‘POFA’).
       There being no notice to driver in evidence, the notice to
       keeper should have included the mandatory warning required by
       POFA paragraph 9(2)(f). The warning contained in the NTK does
       not come close to satisfying that condition. Quite apart from
       referring to paragraph 8 instead of 9, it does not state that
       the operator’s right to recover from the keeper is subject to
       all applicable conditions under POFA being met. Therefore the
       appeal must succeed.”
       #Post#: 14048--------------------------------------------------
       Re: PCN - POPLA stage for Parked Without A Valid Permit. Elite
       Parking Management
   DIR By: summer day
       Date: January 20, 2024, 4:54 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Do I need to reword this in any way?
       This is an appeal by the keeper. The driver has not been
       identified. The operator has put into evidence their PCN which
       does not comply with the requirements for keeper liability in
       Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (‘POFA’).
       Missing mandatory warning:
       There being no notice to driver in evidence, the notice to
       keeper should have included the mandatory warning required by
       POFA paragraph 9(2)(f). The warning contained in the NTK does
       not come close to satisfying that condition. Quite apart from
       referring to paragraph 8 instead of 9, it does not state that
       the operator’s right to recover from the keeper is subject to
       all applicable conditions under POFA being met. Therefore the
       appeal must succeed.
       Concerns about signage:
       While Elite Parking presents photos as evidence of signage,
       these pictures raise serious concerns about its accuracy and
       effectiveness:
       Absent sign: The left-hand sign shown entering the street is
       completely missing in reality. This casts doubt on the
       completeness and reliability of their overall signage strategy.
       Lack of visibility: Notably, their photos lack any signage
       directly visible from the bay where my vehicle was parked.
       Discrepancies: The signs in their photos significantly differ
       from the actual appearance and location of the on-site signage.
       This discrepancy raises serious doubts about the trustworthiness
       of their evidence.
       Appeal request:
       Given the substantial flaws and discrepancies in Elite Parking's
       evidence and signage strategy, I respectfully request that POPLA
       overturn the issued PCN.
       #Post#: 14054--------------------------------------------------
       Re: PCN - POPLA stage for Parked Without A Valid Permit. Elite
       Parking Management
   DIR By: H C Andersen
       Date: January 20, 2024, 7:28 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Can't agree.
       I like to deal with what is in evidence and not what we think
       should be.
       In this case, the PCN NTK refers to 8(2) etc. It is not the
       keeper's task to think this should be something else (e.g. 9)
       and address the alternative, neither could the keeper be
       criticised or placed in jeopardy for not doing so.
       The NTK says what it says and the keeper is perfectly entitled
       to address it as such. Subject to what other correspondence they
       might have had with the creditor and which we have still not
       seen but must exist otherwise there wouldn't be a POPLA code -
       what I referred to as the keeper's appeal to Elite and not their
       appeal to POPLA), IMO the keeper cannot be presumed to know
       anything about matters and may act upon the NTK as written, not
       as we think it should have been written.
       #Post#: 14056--------------------------------------------------
       Re: PCN - POPLA stage for Parked Without A Valid Permit. Elite
       Parking Management
   DIR By: summer day
       Date: January 20, 2024, 8:14 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Are you saying you don't agree with what I have written to
       submit as the comments?
       All of the documents in their  evidence are here
  HTML https://imgur.com/a/V9uxItz
       #Post#: 14066--------------------------------------------------
       Re: PCN - POPLA stage for Parked Without A Valid Permit. Elite
       Parking Management
   DIR By: H C Andersen
       Date: January 20, 2024, 11:43 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       You haven't included all their evidence, or if you have they'll
       fail by default because there's no Notice to Keeper which is the
       key notice.
       But assuming they have submitted this in evidence then:
       You have not admitted being the driver, therefore your only
       issue is whether you may be held liable by the creditor, as they
       have asserted that they may, if the charge is not paid and the
       creditor doesn't know the name of the driver.
       To hold the keeper liable they must serve a compliant Notice to
       Keeper.
       They haven't.
       They have not complied with Schedule 4 of PoFA which is the
       precedent condition for them to hold you liable. Specifically,
       when a creditor relies upon para. 8 of PoFA, which is the case
       here, they must have issued a Notice to Driver and may not serve
       a NTK until at least 28 days have elapsed following service of
       that notice.
       In this case, the date of the alleged breach is 19 Nov. and the
       NTK was served on 23rd.
       Para 8 in part:
       8(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for
       the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with
       this paragraph if the following requirements are met.
       (2)The notice must—
       (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked
       and the period of parking to which the notice relates;
       (b)inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking
       charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that
       the parking charges have not been paid in full;
       (c)state that a notice to driver relating to the specified
       period of parking has been given and repeat the information in
       that notice as required by paragraph 7(2)(b), (c) and (f);
       ......
       4)The 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.
       (5)The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is
       the period of 28 days following the period of 28 days beginning
       with the day after that on which the notice to driver was given.
       It is not your task to guess, deduce, divine or whatever that
       the notice should refer to other matters e.g. should be para. 9
       etc. Think about it, if you were to do this then why not guess
       that it says all the things it doesn't, even if it should have
       referred to para.9 and not appeal at all.
       You have received the notice AS IS.
       You are entitled to deal with it as such.
       But I suspect this view won't be mainstream.
       #Post#: 14069--------------------------------------------------
       Re: PCN - POPLA stage for Parked Without A Valid Permit. Elite
       Parking Management
   DIR By: summer day
       Date: January 20, 2024, 12:59 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       All their evidence is there. Including the notice to keeper. You
       have to scroll down then there's 7 more files
       Thanks I see your point in not mentioning what should be there.
       #Post#: 14075--------------------------------------------------
       Re: PCN - POPLA stage for Parked Without A Valid Permit. Elite
       Parking Management
   DIR By: H C Andersen
       Date: January 20, 2024, 2:14 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Thanks, found it.
       'You are notified under para. 8(2)(b)........'couldn't be
       clearer.
       Is what the evidence states.
       Deal with what's in evidence, not what isn't.
       *****************************************************
       Page 2 of 3
   DIR Previous Page
   DIR Next Page