Yes, got it to load.
So the NtK is not PoFA compliant - end of.
You could comment with the following;
The conditions of PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) are not met - the critically required wording is obviously not present in the NtK.
The wording of PoFA makes it clear that total compliance with Para 9(2) is required in order for PoFA to be relied upon. Para 9(1) reinforces that point beyond any doubt.
The conditions set out in Schedule 4 of PoFA are not met simply by the parking operator stating that they are - close examination of the NtK is required.
I highlighted the NtK failings in my original appeal - the operator simply skips over this point and never demonstrates compliance - their further comments simply demonstrate that they do not understand the requirements of para. 9(2).
The NtK provided in the operator evidence contains a number of highlighted areas (in order to seemingly challenge my appeal evidence) but the highlighting still fails to highlight the required wording - no amount of highlighting will make the required wording magically appear.
I challenge the operator / POPLA assessor to specifically show where the required wording is on the operators NtK?
In order to be compliant, PoFA specifies that the notice 'must' state all of the information required in para. 9(2) in order for the parking operator to rely on PoFA - at no point does the issued notice to keeper 'invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges' - the absence of this required wording is immediately fatal to the operators case - therefore the operator cannot rely on PoFA to transfer liability to the keeper and, as such, the keeper cannot be pursued as the operator is suggesting.
By way of help, in order to satisfy the requirements of para. 9(2)(e), the wording on the NtK from the operator MUST contain wording along the lines of the following;
At the current time, Euro Car Parks (the creditor) does not know both the name and a current address for service for the driver.
The keeper is therefore INVITED TO PAY THE UNPAID PARKING CHARGES (Para 9(2)(e)(i) requirement but not present on the Euro Car Parks NtK)
Or
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 this notice onto the driver (Para 9(2)(e)(ii) requirement)
The wording of Paragraph 9 (of Schedule 4) means that partial compliance with Para 9(2) is not sufficient to move liability onto the keeper using PoFA as the notice 'must' contain all the stated information from 9(2)(a)to(i). The wording used (must) means that total compliance is required with each section and subsection.
Also note that certain sections of para. 9(2) require that the information is provided in a specific manner - that 9(2)(e) requires that the information is presented in such a manner as the keeper is given a specific legal choice between paying the parking charges themselves OR providing the driver details - critically, this legal choice is never set out on the operators NtK as the correct wording from one leg of that choice is never stated.
It also appears that the parking operator needs to reconsider their relationship with their solicitors in that respect.
I have also examined the operators signage layout.
The PCN shows the driver entering the forecourt (from the main road) by making a shallow turn to the left - more of a taper than a turn in fact - due to the layout, most drivers would enter in this manner.
The signage on entry from this direction is wholly inadequate since there is no required 'entry signage' which faces oncoming traffic - this does not appear to meet the minimum requirements set out in The Code of Practice document.
