DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 51508--------------------------------------------------
Re: HORIZON PARKING OVERSTAY @ Tesco PCN
DIR By: Mocede28
Date: December 31, 2024, 11:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Apologies. I missed this totally on page 6.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 51511--------------------------------------------------
Re: HORIZON PARKING OVERSTAY @ Tesco PCN
DIR By: Mocede28
Date: December 31, 2024, 11:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I can’t seem to find any other info relating to the points we
made.
Popla platform is awful I’m unable to see my previous reply. I
remember converting to pdf and submitting.
I did get an email confirmation of submitting appeal that’s all.
#Post#: 51520--------------------------------------------------
Re: HORIZON PARKING OVERSTAY @ Tesco PCN
DIR By: b789
Date: December 31, 2024, 11:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just post a link to the whole PDF they sent you. It is useless
just showing us sections that contain references to other
sections that we cannot see!
Have they included a copy of the original NtK?
#Post#: 51523--------------------------------------------------
Re: HORIZON PARKING OVERSTAY @ Tesco PCN
DIR By: Mocede28
Date: December 31, 2024, 12:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes the original ntk was attached.
I would like to add link to the whole pdf but it contains a lot
of repeated personal info. I’m having a look now if I can blur
info by editing the pdf.
#Post#: 51529--------------------------------------------------
Re: HORIZON PARKING OVERSTAY @ Tesco PCN
DIR By: b789
Date: December 31, 2024, 12:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes, simply redact the personal info and then host the pdf on
dropbox or any other suitable hosting service. Or you can send
it to me attached to a PM and I will do it for you.
It is frustrating trying to compose a rebuttal to the operators
evidence pack without knowing what is in the operators evidence.
#Post#: 51532--------------------------------------------------
Re: HORIZON PARKING OVERSTAY @ Tesco PCN
DIR By: Mocede28
Date: December 31, 2024, 12:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I’m using a new phone too so this makes it difficult. I think I
have managed to edit the pdf and attached it here.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 51537--------------------------------------------------
Re: HORIZON PARKING OVERSTAY @ Tesco PCN
DIR By: b789
Date: December 31, 2024, 1:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Is the vehicle registered to a company rather than an
individual? If so, did you appeal as the company or an
individual?
#Post#: 51540--------------------------------------------------
Re: HORIZON PARKING OVERSTAY @ Tesco PCN
DIR By: Mocede28
Date: December 31, 2024, 2:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I don’t remember any available options as to appealing as an
individual or company? I’m sure there was no option as such.
You can see in the 35 page pdf my initial appeal. Then I
appealed to popla exactly as above which I converted to pdf
before submitting.
Only option I remember in the popla portal it asked for my first
and last name and I put it down as Mr Home Maintenance.
As far as I’m aware horizon or Popla do not hold my real name.
They only have my business name and business address.
#Post#: 51541--------------------------------------------------
Re: HORIZON PARKING OVERSTAY @ Tesco PCN
DIR By: Mocede28
Date: December 31, 2024, 2:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
This vehicle in question is registered as my company vehicle not
a personal/individual vehicle.
#Post#: 51544--------------------------------------------------
Re: HORIZON PARKING OVERSTAY @ Tesco PCN
DIR By: b789
Date: December 31, 2024, 3:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
OK. Here is your response to the operators evidence pack. You
can only use the POPLA webform for responding so simply copy and
paste it into there. It is within the 10,000 character limit:
--- Quote ---
> The operator has not adequately addressed the appeal's core
issue that the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) was never
received. The appellant contacted the operator to report this
and was told the NtK was “probably lost in the post.” The
operator then dismissed its importance by suggesting the
reminder letter could serve as a substitute. This admission
directly supports the appellant's position that the NtK was not
received, undermining the operator’s claim to hold the Keeper
liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
>
> The operator has failed to provide meaningful evidence to
counter this. While they assert that the NtK was issued on
11/10/2024, they provide no proof of posting, such as a
Certificate of Posting or any record to demonstrate the NtK was
sent or received. Their reliance on Royal Mail’s standard
processes, without specific documentation for this case, does
not meet the evidentiary standard required when the NtK’s
delivery is disputed.
>
> The reliance on the reminder letter sent on 11/11/2024 further
highlights the operator's failure to comply with PoFA. The
reminder letter cannot substitute for the NtK, as PoFA requires
that the original NtK be delivered within 14 days of the alleged
contravention. Without delivery of a compliant NtK, liability
cannot transfer to the Keeper.
>
> The appeal also requested the operator provide strict proof of
posting or delivery, given their admission that the NtK was
“probably lost in the post.” Instead of addressing this, the
operator failed to provide any evidence or explanation to
support their assertion that the NtK was sent. Their inability
to produce verifiable proof undermines the presumption of proper
delivery and invalidates their claim.
>
> Without proof that the NtK was sent and delivered, the
operator cannot demonstrate compliance with PoFA’s procedural
requirements. This is essential for transferring liability to
the Registered Keeper, especially as the vehicle is registered
to a company, not an individual. The operator’s failure to
address this in their response further demonstrates the
invalidity of their claim.
>
> I respectfully ask the POPLA assessor to uphold the appeal on
these grounds. The operator’s inability to demonstrate delivery
of the NtK or provide meaningful evidence of compliance with
PoFA makes their claim unsustainable.
>
> The third point of the appeal reserved the right to challenge
the compliance of the NtK with PoFA. Upon reviewing the copy of
the NtK included in the operator's evidence pack, it is evident
the NtK does not fully comply with PoFA's strict requirements.
>
> The key issue lies in how the NtK informs the Keeper about
when liability might be transferred under PoFA. The NtK states
keeper liability begins "28 days after the second working day
after the date of issue." However, this is incorrect under PoFA.
PoFA requires the NtK inform the Keeper liability begins "at the
end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after the
notice is given." This difference is critical because it changes
the timeline for liability and creates confusion.
>
> The date of the alleged contravention was Monday, 7 October
2024. The NtK was issued on Friday, 11 October 2024. Under
postal rules, PoFA considers the NtK "given" two working days
later, which would be Tuesday, 15 October 2024. The
PoFA-required 28-day period then starts the day after this, on
Wednesday, 16 October 2024, and ends on Monday, 11 November
2024. This is the correct date when keeper liability would begin
under PoFA.
>
> The NtK states liability begins 28 days after the second
working day from the date of issue, which the operator
calculates as Tuesday, 12 November 2024. This calculation does
not align with PoFA’s requirements. By misrepresenting the date
when liability begins, the NtK fails to comply with the legal
requirement to provide clear and accurate information. The error
creates ambiguity and does not meet the strict compliance
standards mandated by PoFA.
>
> Since PoFA requires absolute compliance, this discrepancy
means the NtK is invalid for transferring liability to the
Keeper. I respectfully ask the POPLA assessor to consider this
significant error and allow the appeal. The operator’s failure
to provide a compliant NtK means they cannot hold the Keeper
liable under PoFA.
>
> The fourth point of the appeal concerns the operator’s
non-compliance with the Private Parking Single Code of Practice
(PPSCoP), which was in effect on the date of the alleged
contravention, 7 October 2024. The operator’s response fails to
address key concerns and demonstrates non-compliance with
several sections of the PPSCoP.
>
> Clause 11.1 requires parking operators to have a documented
and accessible complaints procedure to ensure complaints are
handled fairly and transparently. The appellant raised a valid
complaint about not receiving the original NtK, and instead of
properly addressing the issue, the operator dismissed it by
stating the NtK was “probably lost in the post” and the reminder
letter could suffice. This response lacks the transparency and
fairness required under the Code.
>
> Clause 8.1.1 specifies notices must provide clear and accurate
information, including details of the appeals process and how
the recipient can challenge the parking charge. By dismissing
the missing NtK as irrelevant and relying on the reminder
letter, the operator fails to ensure the recipient has the
legally required information, as the reminder letter does not
contain the statutory details required in the NtK.
>
> Clause 8.4.1(c) requires operators to consider mitigating
circumstances in appeals. The appellant’s claim that the NtK was
not received and the operator’s admission it was “probably lost
in the post” should have been treated as mitigating. Instead,
the operator’s response indicates they did not consider this and
continued enforcement without addressing the appellant’s
concerns.
>
> Clause 10.1 states operators must take reasonable steps to
ensure correspondence reaches the intended recipient, including
verifying address details and re-sending notices if necessary.
The operator’s admission the NtK was “probably lost in the post”
demonstrates they failed to meet this obligation, as they did
not take further steps to ensure delivery.
>
> The operator’s response fails to address these compliance
failures and does not demonstrate adherence to the PPSCoP. I
respectfully ask the POPLA assessor to uphold the appeal on this
basis, as the operator’s actions show clear breaches of the
PPSCoP’s requirements for fairness, transparency, and
professionalism.
>
> The operator’s response to point 5 of the appeal regarding
evidence of landowner authority is inadequate and fails to meet
the requirements of the PPSCoP. The Code requires parking
operators provide written confirmation from the landowner
demonstrating their authority to issue parking charges and
manage parking on the specific site.
>
> The document provided by the operator in Section F of their
response pack is labeled "Annex A: Agreed Form of
Authority/Witness Statement." This document is heavily redacted
and does not meet the required standards for several reasons.
>
> First, the document is generic and lacks specificity. It does
not explicitly state it pertains to the location of the alleged
contravention. Without a clear link to the specific site, the
document cannot serve as sufficient evidence of the operator’s
authority to manage parking at that location.
>
> Second, the document is missing critical information. The Code
requires agreements of this nature identify the landowner,
provide a boundary map defining the managed land, and specify
the terms of the operator’s authority, including any limitations
or conditions. The redacted document fails to provide this
information, making it impossible to verify compliance with the
Code.
>
> Third, the signatures and dates on the document have been
redacted. This prevents verification of whether the agreement
was in effect at the time of the alleged contravention. The lack
of verifiable dates and signatures raises doubts about the
validity of the document.
>
> Finally, the Code requires operators provide clear, unredacted
evidence demonstrating their authority to enforce parking
charges on the site. The operator’s response fails to satisfy
this requirement, and their reliance on a heavily redacted,
generic document is insufficient.
>
> Given these deficiencies, the operator has not demonstrated
they have the necessary landowner authority to issue parking
charges or enforce terms at the site. I respectfully request the
POPLA assessor uphold the appeal on this basis. The operator’s
failure to provide adequate evidence of landowner authority
invalidates their claim.
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 6
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page