DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 34715--------------------------------------------------
Reject appeal
DIR By: Muhammad
Date: August 27, 2024, 9:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi folks
I challenged my PCN with the private car park company which they
rejected.They didn't have the pictures as evidence of my car
parked on restricted area .So should i go for appeal in Popla ?
Experts please guide me . Many Thanks
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/19IU4V-1jpCgg9JNqG1dmzmxGfWeSDH2U/view?usp=drivesdk
#Post#: 34728--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reject appeal
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: August 27, 2024, 12:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I have removed that second attachment, you left your full name
and home address visible!
Can you show us what you submitted as your appeal?
#Post#: 34731--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reject appeal
DIR By: Muhammad
Date: August 27, 2024, 2:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi
I have asked them about the evidence as i told them i am not
able to find it on the website nor on the PCN ..I just asked
them then to cancel the PCN
#Post#: 34733--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reject appeal
DIR By: Muhammad
Date: August 27, 2024, 2:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Here is the link to letter in which they reject my request
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/19Sdwqctr4WCm966wHs5YbJ6Q6j06stAr/view?usp=drivesdk
#Post#: 34736--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reject appeal
DIR By: b789
Date: August 27, 2024, 3:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
What evidence have they provided to show the vehicle parked on
double yellow lines (DYL)? The only photo in the Notice to
Keeper (NtK) does not show any vehicle parked on DYLs.
Are there any additional photos on their website evidencing the
vehicle parked or stopped on DYLs?
Also, does the photo on the NtK have a visible dat/timestamp on
it?
Of course you appeal. Did you reveal the drivers identity when
you appealed to UKPC?
As the NtK is essentially PoFA compliant except for a deficiency
whereby the period of parking is not clearly stated. There is a
time stated that the vehicle was allegedly parked on DYLs and
there is a duration of parking. Was the vehicle parked from
13:31:53 for 26 minutes and 27 seconds or was it parked for that
long until that time. However, that does not define the period
of parking as required by PoFA.
Please answer the questions posed above and we can then help you
put together your POPLA appeal which should have the following
points (subject to answers to some of the above questions):
1. No evidence of the vehicle in breach of the contract
2. No keeper liability due to PoFA non-compliance
3. No evidence of the person being pursued is the driver
4. Failure to comply with the BPA CoP
5. Rubbish signs and non-compliance with the BPA CoP
6. No evidence of a contract flowing from the landowner to UKPC
to operate and issue PCNs in its own name
#Post#: 34738--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reject appeal
DIR By: Muhammad
Date: August 27, 2024, 3:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi there are only 2 photos on the website both of them don't
show anything related to the parking of vehicle on yellow lines
.
I asked them about the proof but they did not give me any ..
And also i did not reveal driver's identity ..
And there is no timestamp on the photo that was on PCN ..
Thanks
#Post#: 34754--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reject appeal
DIR By: b789
Date: August 27, 2024, 5:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
So, based on the list of points I have provided, start to put
together your POPLA appeal. Go through each point and explain to
the POPLA assessor why you, the keeper, are not liable for the
charge.
You will need to refer to the various PoFA non-compliance points
and the BPA Code of Practice (CoP). For example, 21.5a states
that photographic evidence must not be altered. If the timestamp
is not visible in the phot in the NtK, it must have been cropped
or altered in some way from the original. There was a recent
POPLA appeal that was won on precisely that point alone:
--- Quote ---
> POPLA code: 2413353469
>
> Decision: Successful
> Assessor Name: Gayle Stanton
> Assessor summary of operator case
>
> The operator has issued the PCN because the vehicle was parked
on the site and the pay and display permit did not cover the
date and time of parking.
>
> Assessor summary of your case
>
> The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal:
> • The signage is inadequate
> • The Notice to Keeper (NTK) does not meet PoFA requirements.
> • The NTK does not accurately describe the circumstances so
there is no keeper liability.
> • The operator has not shown that the individual it is chasing
is the driver.
> • No landowner authority
> • Grace period- Non compliance with the British Parking
Association (BPA).
> • No evidence of the period parked.
> • Images of the vehicle contained within the NTK are not
compliant with the BPA.
> • The ANPR system is not reliable or accurate.
>
> The appellant has provided a document detailing their appeal
and they have commented on the operator’s case file.
>
> Assessor supporting rational for decision
>
> In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof rests with the
operator to provide clear evidence of the contravention it
alleges occurred, and consequently, that it issued the PCN
correctly. I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined
below:
>
> The Images of the vehicle contained within the NTK are not
compliant with the BPA. The appellant has stated in the comments
that although the operator has provided full date stamped
photographs in the case file, the images on the NTK are not
compliant.
>
> I acknowledge the appellant’s grounds of appeal and I have
reviewed the evidence provided by the operator. The British
Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice Section 21.5a states:
>
> ” When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs
as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way.
The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you
claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included
on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be
clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally
altered.
>
> I have reviewed the copy of the NTK provided by the operator
and I am not satisfied that the images of the vehicle number
plate on the NTK are compliant with Section 21.5a of the BPA
Code of Practice.
> These images are not date stamped and after seeing the full
images in the case file they appear to have been digitally
altered or cropped to fit on the NTK. This is especially
apparent on the colour image on the NTK.
>
> The image recorded of the vehicle entering the site is also
not very clear I note that the appellant has raised further
grounds for appeal in this case, however as I have allowed the
appeal for this reason, I have not considered them. As such, I
conclude that the PCN has been issued incorrectly. Accordingly,
I must allow this appeal.
--- End Quote ---
So, you see the level of detail required to lead the assessor to
your points.
#Post#: 34952--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reject appeal
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: August 29, 2024, 11:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=2228]Muhammad[/member] today is the last day.
#Post#: 34963--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reject appeal
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: August 29, 2024, 12:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
We are just working on it. Back in 15 minutes. Or less.
Comments please:
I appeal this ticket because:
1. The photographic evidence in the Notice to Keeper (NtK) does
not show my vehicle parked on yellow lanes/hatched area.
2. And also there is no date and stamp on photo provided on the
NTK rendering it non-compliant. There is a time stated that the
vehicle was allegedly parked on DYLs and there is a duration of
parking. Was the vehicle parked from 13:31:53 for 26 minutes
and 27 seconds or was it parked for that long until that time.
However, that does not define the period of parking as required
by PoFA. The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice
Section 21.5a states: ” When issuing a parking charge notice you
may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an
unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the
incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp
should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for
evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched
or digitally altered.
3. There is no evidence of the vehicle being in breach of the
contract. I put UKPC to strict proof in this regard.
4. I rely upon the following decision:
POPLA code: 2413353469
Decision: Successful
Assessor Name: Gayle Stanton
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the PCN because the vehicle was parked
on the site and the pay and display permit did not cover the
date and time of parking.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal:
• The signage is inadequate
• The Notice to Keeper (NTK) does not meet PoFA requirements.
• The NTK does not accurately describe the circumstances so
there is no keeper liability.
• The operator has not shown that the individual it is chasing
is the driver.
• No landowner authority
• Grace period- Non compliance with the British Parking
Association (BPA).
• No evidence of the period parked.
• Images of the vehicle contained within the NTK are not
compliant with the BPA.
• The ANPR system is not reliable or accurate.
The appellant has provided a document detailing their appeal and
they have commented on the operator’s case file.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof rests with the
operator to provide clear evidence of the contravention it
alleges occurred, and consequently, that it issued the PCN
correctly. I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined
below:
The Images of the vehicle contained within the NTK are not
compliant with the BPA. The appellant has stated in the comments
that although the operator has provided full date stamped
photographs in the case file, the images on the NTK are not
compliant.
I acknowledge the appellant’s grounds of appeal and I have
reviewed the evidence provided by the operator. The British
Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice Section 21.5a states:
” When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs
as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way.
The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you
claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included
on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be
clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally
altered.
I have reviewed the copy of the NTK provided by the operator and
I am not satisfied that the images of the vehicle number plate
on the NTK are compliant with Section 21.5a of the BPA Code of
Practice.
These images are not date stamped and after seeing the full
images in the case file they appear to have been digitally
altered or cropped to fit on the NTK. This is especially
apparent on the colour image on the NTK.
The image recorded of the vehicle entering the site is also not
very clear I note that the appellant has raised further grounds
for appeal in this case, however as I have allowed the appeal
for this reason, I have not considered them. As such, I conclude
that the PCN has been issued incorrectly. Accordingly, I must
allow this appeal.
#Post#: 34964--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reject appeal
DIR By: b789
Date: August 29, 2024, 1:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
As this should be a fairly straightforward appeal to POPLA try
the following:
POPLA ref: 123456789
UKPC ref: 123456789 Vehicle registration: AB12CDE
I am the Registered Keeper (RK) of the vehicle and I dispute the
Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the following grounds:
(1) The driver denies parking on double yellow lines or hatched
area.
(2) Failure to comply with the BPA CoP section 21.5a.
(3) No evidence of landholder authority.
(1) The driver denies parking on double yellow lines or hatched
area.
The operator is put to strict proof that the driver of the
vehicle parked on double yellow lines or hatched are at the
location. The keeper has seen no evidence to prove the
allegation in the Notice to Keeper (NtK).
(2) Failure to comply with the BPA CoP section 21.5a.
The operator has altered or cropped the evidential phot in the
NtK in breach of BPA Code of Practice (CoP) section 21.5a which
clearly states:
--- Quote ---
> Use of Photographic Evidence
>
> 21.5a Photographic evidence must not be used by you as the
basis for issuing a parking charge unless:
>
> a) at least one of the images captured includes a clear
> record of the vehicle’s VRM to which the parking charge is
deemed to apply;
> b) the images bear an accurate time and date stamp applied at
the point the picture was taken;
> c) the image(s) show, where appropriate, the pay and display
tariff receipt as displayed or not being visible; and
> d) images generated by ANPR or CCTV have been subject to a
manual quality control check, including the accuracy of the
time-stamp and the risk of keying errors.
>
> Alteration of photographic evidence
>
> You must not digitally or by other means alter images used as
photographic evidence other than:
> e) to blur faces or the VRMs of other vehicles in the image in
accordance with your GDPR obligations; or
> f) to enhance the image of the VRM for clarity, but not to
alter the letters and numbers displayed.
--- End Quote ---
This point was upheld in a recent POPLA appeal by assessor Gayle
Stanton:
--- Quote ---
> POPLA code: 2413353469
>
> Decision: Successful
> Assessor Name: Gayle Stanton
> Assessor summary of operator case
>
> The operator has issued the PCN because the vehicle was parked
on the site and the pay and display permit did not cover the
date and time of parking.
>
> Assessor summary of your case
>
> The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal:
> • The signage is inadequate
> • The Notice to Keeper (NTK) does not meet PoFA requirements.
> • The NTK does not accurately describe the circumstances so
there is no keeper liability.
> • The operator has not shown that the individual it is chasing
is the driver.
> • No landowner authority
> • Grace period- Non compliance with the British Parking
Association (BPA).
> • No evidence of the period parked.
> • Images of the vehicle contained within the NTK are not
compliant with the BPA.
> • The ANPR system is not reliable or accurate.
>
> The appellant has provided a document detailing their appeal
and they have commented on the operator’s case file.
>
> Assessor supporting rational for decision
>
> In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof rests with the
operator to provide clear evidence of the contravention it
alleges occurred, and consequently, that it issued the PCN
correctly. I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined
below:
>
> The Images of the vehicle contained within the NTK are not
compliant with the BPA. The appellant has stated in the comments
that although the operator has provided full date stamped
photographs in the case file, the images on the NTK are not
compliant.
>
> I acknowledge the appellant’s grounds of appeal and I have
reviewed the evidence provided by the operator. The British
Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice Section 21.5a states:
>
> ” When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs
as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way.
The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you
claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included
on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be
clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally
altered.
>
> I have reviewed the copy of the NTK provided by the operator
and I am not satisfied that the images of the vehicle number
plate on the NTK are compliant with Section 21.5a of the BPA
Code of Practice.
> These images are not date stamped and after seeing the full
images in the case file they appear to have been digitally
altered or cropped to fit on the NTK. This is especially
apparent on the colour image on the NTK.
>
> The image recorded of the vehicle entering the site is also
not very clear I note that the appellant has raised further
grounds for appeal in this case, however as I have allowed the
appeal for this reason, I have not considered them. As such, I
conclude that the PCN has been issued incorrectly. Accordingly,
I must allow this appeal.
--- End Quote ---
(3) No evidence of landholder authority.
The operator is also put to strict proof, by means of
contemporaneous and unredacted evidence, of a chain of authority
flowing from the landholder of the "relevant land" to the
operator.
It is not accepted that the operator has adhered to the
landholder's definitions, exemptions, grace period, hours of
operation, etc. and any instructions to cancel charges due to
complaints. There is no evidence that the freeholder authorises
this operator to issue parking charges or what the land
enforcement boundary and start/expiry dates are, nor whether
this operator has standing to enforce such charges in their own
name rather than a bare licence to act as an agent ‘on behalf
of’ the landowner.
The operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the
BPA Code of Practice As this operator does not have proprietary
interest in the “relevant land” then I require that they produce
an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The
contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out
details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or
'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of
veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define
what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances
where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to
cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an
agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue
Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to
make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers
and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal
action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for
a landowner only). Witness statements are not sound evidence of
the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even
identifying the case in hand or even the site rules.
A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but
in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence
the definition of the services provided by each party to the
agreement. Nor would it define vital information such as
charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which
I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in
the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and
bays where enforcement applies/does not apply.
Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the
landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and, of
course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge
(which cannot be assumed to be the sum on a sign because
template private parking terms and sums have been known not to
match the actual landowner agreement). Paragraph 7 of the BPA
Code of Practice defines the mandatory requirements and I put
this operator to strict proof of full compliance:
[indent]7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any
outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the
written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent)
prior to legal action being taken.
7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:
[indent](a) the definition of the land on which you may operate,
so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
(b) any conditions or restrictions on parking control and
enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of
operation
(c) any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that
may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
(d) who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining
signs
(e) the definition of the services provided by each party to the
agreement[/indent][/indent]
Conclusion
This POPLA appeal highlights serious omissions and failures by
the operator which show that the PCN has been issued
incorrectly. There is no evidence of the allegation made in the
NtK that the vehicle was parked on double yellow lines or a
hatched area. The evidential photo in the NtK has been altered
or cropped which is a clear breach of the BPA CoP section 21.5a
and the operator has not shown tat it has any authority to issue
PCNs in its own name on behalf of the landowner.
These points prove that the PCN has been issued incorrectly and
the POPLA assessor should take them into account when making
their assessment of the validity of the charge.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page