Show Posts - docklander

My brother completed the Notice of Intended Prosecution, with the agreement of the investigating officer that it was still within time to do so. Today, a letter dated 13.03.2025 was received:"Thank you for your recent communication relating to the alleged offence involving vehicle XXXXXX on 19/09/2024 at XX:XX at XXXXXXXXXXXX.Unfortunately, due to the high speed you was travelling at, this offence has been referred to the prosecution team . Court proceedings are being initiated and in due course you will receive a further communication which will explin the options available to you."Is this standard procedure?

Quote from: G6PRK on 14 Mar, 2025 19:42You need to also post the full POPLA appeal you sent - assuming it differs from the first draft you posted in December.It did not.

As requested:DecisionUnsuccessfulAssessor NameHeidi BrownAssessor summary of operator caseThe parking operator has issued a parking charge notice due to the motorist parking without a valid permit.Assessor summary of your caseThe appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: - The appellant states the Notice to Keeper does not meet the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA). - The appellant requests evidence of a contract between the operator and landowner.Assessor supporting rational for decisionWhen assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the parking operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. When entering a site, it is the motorist’s responsibility to read the signs and adhere to the terms and conditions stated. In this case, the signs state vehicles must be registered for a valid permit. The parking operator has provided a permit report which shows no record of permit against the vehicle in question. Therefore, the terms and conditions of the site were breached, and a charge was issued for £100. - The appellant states the Notice to Keeper does not meet the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA). The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified. The appellant was identified as the registered keeper and no driver details were provided, therefore I must assess if the Notice to Keeper is compliant with PoFA. Upon reviewing the PCN, I am satisfied that it was issued within the permitted timeframe and contains the relevant information outlined in PoFA. Please note that there is no requirement to name the creditor on the PCN as the operator is acting on behalf of the PCN. Having reviewed the PCN, I am satisfied that it meets the requirements of PoFA and the operator is permitted to pursue the appellant as the registered keeper. - The appellant requests evidence of a contract between the operator and landowner. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 14.1 of the Code states that where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner, written confirmation must be obtained before a parking charge can be issued. The operator has provided a signed witness statement to demonstrate that it has landowner authorization. Although the Code of Practice outlines what authorisation must set out my observations extend beyond checking documentation; it includes consideration of the fact that there is equipment, signage and on occasion personnel on site to manage the function of enforcement and this cannot happen without the landowner’s authority. I am sure that if the parking operator was not allowed to issue charges on site the landowner would not permit the parking operator to keep its signage on site nor would the landowner allow motorists to park on its land without authorisation. Based on the information supplied by the parking operator I am satisfied that it meets with the minimum standards set out by the Code of Practice and is compliant. After considering the evidence from both parties, the motorist parked without a valid permit and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. As such, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly and I must refuse the appeal.

I had the email notification last night. My appeal has been declined:Assessor supporting rational for decision.When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the parking operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. When entering a site, it is the motorist’s responsibility to read the signs and adhere to the terms and conditions stated. In this case, the signs state vehicles must be registered for a valid permit. The parking operator has provided a permit report which shows no record of permit against the vehicle in question. Therefore, the terms and conditions of the site were breached, and a charge was issued for £100. - The appellant states the Notice to Keeper does not meet the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA). The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified. The appellant was identified as the registered keeper and no driver details were provided, therefore I must assess if the Notice to Keeper is compliant with PoFA. Upon reviewing the PCN, I am satisfied that it was issued within the permitted timeframe and contains the relevant information outlined in PoFA. Please note that there is no requirement to name the creditor on the PCN as the operator is acting on behalf of the PCN. Having reviewed the PCN, I am satisfied that it meets the requirements of PoFA and the operator is permitted to pursue the appellant as the registered keeper. - The appellant requests evidence of a contract between the operator and landowner. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 14.1 of the Code states that where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner, written confirmation must be obtained before a parking charge can be issued. The operator has provided a signed witness statement to demonstrate that it has landowner authorization. Although the Code of Practice outlines what authorisation must set out my observations extend beyond checking documentation; it includes consideration of the fact that there is equipment, signage and on occasion personnel on site to manage the function of enforcement and this cannot happen without the landowner’s authority. I am sure that if the parking operator was not allowed to issue charges on site the landowner would not permit the parking operator to keep its signage on site nor would the landowner allow motorists to park on its land without authorisation. Based on the information supplied by the parking operator I am satisfied that it meets with the minimum standards set out by the Code of Practice and is compliant. After considering the evidence from both parties, the motorist parked without a valid permit and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. As such, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly and I must refuse the appeal.So, is there anything else I can do?

Quote from: NewJudge on 11 Mar, 2025 09:02 Tell us the speed and limit and we can give you an idea of the likely number of points.It was 35 in a 20,"It's not impossible but if one is issued the charge can be defended on the basis that the proceedings were taken too late. Bear in mind that the FTF offence is not committed until 28 days after the first request is issued."Does the FTF ever time out?

Quote from: andy_foster on 10 Mar, 2025 19:10Quote from: BertB on 10 Mar, 2025 18:59However it doesn't sound like he returned the form at all stating he was not the driver/not his vehicle. More just entered into correspondence instead. On the face of it, that would make him guilty of failing to respond to the request. Twaddle. The form is neither here nor there.The question is whether or not he has told the police that his vehicle was elsewhere/not involved in the alleged offence.I have already asked the OP what information has been provided in response to the s. 172 requirement, and he repliedQuoteThe owner of the vehicle provided photos of the car and then an image of CCTV showing the car elsewhere.Whilst it seems implausible that there wasn't some meaningful explanation or statement accompanying what would otherwise be a random collection of holiday snaps, I am not a qualified dentist.Andy, when the original letter was received, he wrote to the police explaining that he did not recognise being in that location at that time and asked for advice as to how best complete the form. The police responded by asking for photos of the car.Over the next 5 months, email and written conversations followed. Recently, he sent in a CCTV image of the car on his driveway. The investigating officer has now referred the matter to prosecutions but said on 10.03 that he could still complete the Notice of Intended Prosecution but that had to be done "asap".He has not mentioned the previous clone report to another police force (this was for an alleged offence some two weeks prior to the one being discussed now).1. Do all matters passed over to prosecutions proceed to court?2. If the speeding times out, does it become impossible for a SJPN to be issued?3. If an SJPN is still issued and he uses the strategy of pleading guilty to speeding if the FTF is dropped, can that be agreed on the lower point basis (4 rather than 6) or does a judge still need to determine if its a 4 or 6 point penalty?Thanks again for the advice and help. I am starting to think maybe I should not have offered to assist him but family eh?!

So, if he has points on his license already (3 currently, 3 pending), how likely are they to issue 4 points rather than 6, if a sincere, apologetic stance is taken? Similarly, how likely is a NG defence to succeed with the evidence of a CCTV screenshot and a potential reported clone 2 weeks prior to this alleged offence?Finally, should he declare the previous potential clone to the existing police force as currently they do not know about it?

Quote from: NewJudge on 10 Mar, 2025 16:46What is the exact date of the offence and up to what date have the police said they will accept a completed request for driver's details?QuoteIf he has existing points, do they look at that when considering what points to issue as I believe the indicator for his speed is 4 to 6 points?What difference does that make? Either he accepts he was the driver or he doesn't. Since a conviction for failing to provide the driver's details carries six points and the maximum for speeding (whatever the speed) also carries six points it will make no difference. As well as that, his decision should be on the basis of what he knows and accepts.I think this is becoming a trifle bizarre, especially when you say the police will accept a response with seven days to go before the speeding offence times out.The original date of offence was 19.09.2024. The problem us that what he knows vs what he accepts are two different things. He is sure/knows he wasnt there but accepting the speeding offence seems the lesser of two evils?

Quote from: BertB on 10 Mar, 2025 16:42No, but depending on how many points he currently has, a successful prosecution may trigger a disqualification under the totting up process. Would I be right in assuming that he is on 6 points, so 6 points for failure to furnish driver details would put him at 12, versus hoping a magistrate will calculate the original offence is worth less than 6 points even though he and his car wasn't at the location? Yes, that is pretty much spot on.Where did this CCTV image come from? A neighbour or a business? It has been mentioned earlier, but the person who provided the CCTV image can attend court in the case of a NG plea and testify to its authenticity. Or is that not possible?On my brothers driveway. Edit, the speeding only has 7 days until timeout? He doesn't need a solicitor, he needs to complete the form and make sure it is back to them and acknowledged within that time period otherwise they will prosecute for FTF with no speeding option. So this confuses me. If he completes the form, he is stating he was the driver?

Police have emailed, today, to say they will still accept a completed NIP.Brother is torn as has only the CCTV screen shot and no other evidence.The alleged offence is now very close to being 6 months old, in around 7 days time.If he has existing points, do they look at that when considering what points to issue as I believe the indicator for his speed is 4 to 6 points?

I would suggest it is now too late to complete the s172 request as it getting to the point where the police have insufficient time to prosecute the driver for speeding. At what point does it become too late to prosecute a driver for speeding after the alleged offence?

I think its ok to post here on the existing thread? (3rd time lucky)Looking for advice on possible legal representation. If you used someone, please let me know what they cost, did they win and which company or barrister you used?Thanks all.

Quote from: disgruntchelt on 08 Mar, 2025 15:29I don’t understand. Either the owner knows his car was elsewhere and wasn’t speeding, Or the owner was trying a cunning wheeze to avoid points and a fine.In the former I don’t understand why they wouldn’t be willing to go to court to clear their name.  I’m sure the bench would accept the evidence.If it is the latter case, you are basically asking can the owner get out of this without consuming porridge? I guess if they don’t present any evidence and plead guilty to FTF (and not guilty to speeding if they’ve been dual charges) the police might ignore their attempt at perverting the course of justice, and they’ll just get the 6 points and hefty insurance premiums for a while.What is FTF?The investigating officer has basically put the fear of god into him and are claiming that CCTV can be manipulated and is not admissible.

The alleged offence was in October, the deadline for reply was extended until 27.02.2025 due to ongoing communications.

No wish to be cyrptic, trying to be direct.The original ticket was received around October.The car owner did not believe the car was in that location at the time of the alleged offence. A letter was posted to police explaining that. The police wrote back around December asking for photos of the car from all angles. This was emailed to the police.The police then wrote back saying that although a small difference had been identified on the number plate, they believed the car was in the time of the alleged offence.They emailed a photo of the front of the car and a photo of the owner from their driving license. It is not possible to identify the driver from the photo of the car.An email conversation followed. The owner then sent a printed photo of the car on CCTV elsewhere. The police emailed to say they could not see the car properly so an email photo was sent. The police then wrote to say that CCTV can be manipulated and this is not admissable as proof. As of around two days ago, the police stated the matter had now been sent for prosecution.Another speeding ticket was received two weeks prior to this by a different police force. The same process was followed but that police force accepted that it was 50/50 as to whether or not the car had been cloned and said no further action would be taken. The owner has not let the police force with the current alleged offence about the prior matter.The owner takes the view they would rather possibly now complete the s172 and accept they may be mistaken than to take the matter to court. Is it now too late to do this?I am the brother of the owner of the car and trying my very best to help.