Free Traffic Legal Advice

So I need to stop worrying?

Okay, here it is. A link to my appeal. I apologise in advance to @b789 for choosing to keep in the 'no invitation to the keeper'. I just felt like if there was any chance something might get missed or the slightest chance POPLA still see it as noteworthy it would be worth keeping. Plus with the ambiguity of the address it helps to bolster this argument.

Note I have NOT sent this. I am still waiting to hear from the landowners in the hope I can have the charge removed.


POPLA APPEAL DRAFT

No such thing as bad criticism so don't be shy.

I will fully scrap point 3 on the failures of the NtK. I spent the last week hoping to contact the landowners to have the PCN cancelled getting as far as speaking with the agency who represent the landlord but sadly no luck. I know I am soon approaching the deadline for my POPLA appeal and so I just wanted to ask if upon reading my other points (particularly the first one) that I have made my points clear enough? I really want it be clear on the fault of their ANPR system so that the PCN is fairly cancelled.

Thank you @b789 and @DWMB2 it sounds like the consensus is to drop this point. Do I still include the point that the addresses on the NTK don't match the address of the parking location or is this also nullified by identifying the diver?

Is it worth me adding the screenshots of similarly damning reviews of the car park that I sent previously or is this unnecessary? They are both taken from car parks operated by Euro Car Parks

See earlier post for images.

I absolutely see both of you points and I feel that it would be to leave less substantial points towards the end of my appeal. That being said, besides the operators failure to display the correct time upon do I actually have any other meritorious points? (In your opinion)

Honestly I am so annoyed I rushed into my initial appeal and identified the driver. Life lesson I guess.

Wow. Thank you, reading this through I definitely prefer the no nonsense approach. Does this all serve as just for my main point? Would you recommend I still include my other arguments or would your suggestions suffice?

Hi there everyone. Please find below an initial draft of my appeal. Points addressed as ?? are additional purposed points and therefore have no been developed. If you believe any of these have the potential to be useful please let me know and I will develop them. Thank you all for what you have already offered, I am beyond grateful.

"APPEAL: POPLA REFERENCE: 2411454240
Euro Car Parks NtK
Date of issue: 22/04/2024
VEHICLE REG: VU71FYJ
Accused Breach of Terms and Conditions: Your payment or validation did not cover the duration of stay

I am the registered Keeper of the above vehicle and I am appealing against above charge. I propose that this has been issued incorrectly and have evidence to prove this. I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge on the following grounds and would ask that they are all considered. EURO CAR PARKS failed to display the correct time upon payment, within their NtK there is no invitation to the keeper to pay the charge, they have not provided evidence of landowner authority and the signage fails to meet the required British Parking Association standards.

1. On the date in question, when the driver used the payment system provided, Euro Car Parks system failed to display the correct time. As you can clearly see from *evidence of reciept* the *START TIME OF PARKING SESSION* is time stamped at 10:38pm which is a direct contradiction of the vehicle time arrival Euro Car Parks have claimed in their initial response to my appeal. Variously the PPC is in breach of an implied term of the contract (that the machine will accept the required payment) and trying to hold the driver liable for their failure and/or that the contract was frustrated by the failure of their machine.

2. There are also failures in their NtK that prevents them from transferring the liability from the driver to the the keeper due to no invitation to the keeper to pay the charge as required by the strict provisions of PoFA 9(2)(e)(i). As that requirement is missing, the NtK is not fully compliant with the requirements of PoFA and they cannot transfer liability from the driver to the keeper.

3. The operator in question has not provided evidence of landowner authority. *WHAT EVIDENCE DO I NEED TO REFERENCE HERE?* Therefore the burden of proof lies on the operator EURO CAR PARKS to prove that they do have that authority.

4. The signage at the car park was not compliant with the British Parking Association standards and there was no valid contract between the parking company and the driver. Following receipt of the charge, I have personally visited the site in question. I believe the signs and any core parking terms that the parking company are relying upon do not offer sufficient customer support. The Operator needs to show evidence of support in the event of system errors - specifically providing a contact support that could adepately address and error such as system errors. Please refer to *EVIDENCE OF SIGNAGE FOR PARKING TERMS AND CONDITIONS* to see that no offer or support or contact is provided if any errors or failures in their systems occur. The number provided on their PAYMENT RECEIPT *cite evidence of reciept* and on their signage does not provide an option to speak to an operator or even leave a message so EURO CAR PARKS have failed to provide adequate support for customers. Their signage also states 'PLEASE VSIIT THE PAY STATION TO PAY FOR PARKING BEFORE RETURNING TO YOUR VEHICLE'. I believe the signs failed to properly and clearly warn/inform the driver of the terms in this car park as they failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice appendix B. The driver followed these instructions and therefor forfilled the terms and conditions set out thus invalidating the NtK in question. I require the operator to provide photographic evidence that proves otherwise.

??. Planning consent is required for car parks and have conditions that grant permission as the car park provides a service to the community. To bring in time limits, charges and ANPR cameras, planning consent is required for this variation. I have no evidence that planning consent was obtained for this change and I put the parking company to strict proof to provide evidence that there is planning consent to cover the current parking conditions and chargeable regime in this car park. In view of this, and the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice section 7 that demands that valid contract with mandatory clauses specifying the extent of the parking company’s authority, I require the parking company to produce a copy of the contract with the landowner that shows POPLA that they do, indeed have such authority.

??. Neither the parking company or their client has proved that they have planning consent to charge motorists for any alleged contravention.

??. The parking company has no contract with the landowner that permits them to levy charges on motorists up to pursuit of these charges through the courts.

This concludes my appeal.

Thank you for your consideration."


Any and all critique massively appreciated

Okay will do! One last thing, can I still use the argument that An invitation for the keeper to pay the charge was not given? Also is this the same as lack of prominence of the charge for breaching the terms?