POPLA Complaint.
POPLA Code -
Assessor Name - Lyndsey Howgate.
I have recently received a response from your colleague regarding a parking appeal.
In her reply Lyndsey Howgate makes two serious errors.
Complaint Point One.
In my appeal I clearly pointed out that the land at Fullwell Cross Leisure Centre was owned by Redbridge Borough Council and, as such, it is not relevant land for the purposes of PoFA keeper liability.
The land is in fact council owned and being leased, long term, to Vision-Redbridge Culture and Leisure which is a wholly council owned project.
This lease does not alter the determination of relevant land since the council still own it.
I made all this clear in my initial appeal and again in my comments on the operator's evidence.
The first thing to note is that the operator did not attempt to rebut this appeal point, they don't even address it - I pointed this out in my comments.
In her response Lyndsey Howgate states the following;
"I am satisfied that the land is private land and not council owned." - This appears to be an error on the part of the Assessor.
Secondly, the operator has provided no rebuttal evidence relating to who actually OWNS then land - although the parking operators agreement is signed by Vision Redbridge (The Client), the legislation allows an 'appointed agent' to act on behalf of the landowner - in this case the appointed agent is Vision Redbridge - The fact that an appointed agent can sign such documents means that the operators agreement is incapable of providing rebuttal evidence relating to the true ownership of the land - in any circumstance, it could be the leaseholder who signs rather than the landowner.
In this instance the car park is 'provided' by Redbridge Borough Council even if they do not control it - this makes it non relevant land under PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 3(1)(b).
Complaint Point Two.
Failure to correctly assess compliance with PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(e).
In my appeal I made it crystal clear that the NtK was not PoFA complaint.
In her response, Lyndsey Howgate states;
"the PCN in question has the necessary information" - I note immediately that the Assessor fails to engage with my evidence point - she could simply demonstrate compliance by setting out the wording which I suggest is missing - this gives the clear impression that the Assessor is looking to quickly 'skip over' an awkward point which is not rebuttable via demonstration - engaging with the evidence would only lead towards an admission of non compliance.
The assertion that the NtK has all the "necessary information" is demonstratable false - all we need to do is examine the NtK.
TO BE CLEAR - This complaint point specifically relates to non compliance with paragraph 9(2)(e) and, as such, there is no need for you to demonstrate compliance with other paragraphs - please stick firmly to the issue of compliance with 9(2)(e).
PLEASE ALSO NOTE - that compliance with 9(2)(e) is not achieved by quoting text from 9(2)(f) and loosely implying relevance.
9(2)(e) specifies the following;
THE NOTICE MUST STATE that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver AND invite the keeper—
(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or
(ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;
I have capitalised certain words deliberately - notice in particular that the word AND requires that the notice set out the wording AND invite the keeper to blah blah blah OR blah blah blah.
So, in order to be compliant, we are looking for a sentence of mandatory text immediately followed by a two limbed legal invitation to the keeper with the two limbs separated by the Boolean operator "OR".
So, be my guest.
Please specifically point out, on the parking operators NtK, the sentence of mandatory wording which the notice MUST STATE, "the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver" - please DO NOT skip over this request - go ahead and point out the sentence?
Here's a clue - the wording is not present.
Following on from that, please point out the required mandatory two limbed invitation to the keeper to either pay the unpaid charges or provide alternative driver details? Don't forget the Boolean operator (OR) which must separate the two limbs!
Once again, the two limbed invitation is not present - if the two limbed invitation is present then please specifically point them out rather than skipping over my request.
As I am sure you can see, the operators NtK is NOT actually compliant is it? And Lyndsey has completely overlooked the requirements of 9(2)(e)?
This is incredibly disappointing given that my evidence led her directly to the non compliance - there really is no excuse.
I await your response with interest.
Best wishes,
xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx
