Could you post up the text of your appeal?
Did you use the individual appeal point?
Hello @ InterCity125,
Apologies for the delay to revert. here is the text of my POPLA appeal as submitted:
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and I am appealing this Parking Charge Notice as keeper only, since the driver is not known to the operator. The driver has not been identified.
I understand that, under POPLA rules, I must set out my appeal points and the operator must rebut them.
APPEAL POINT ONE – Non-compliance with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(e), 9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(e)(ii).
The operator’s Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the mandatory wording and requirements of PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(e).
In particular, the NtK does not contain the mandatory wording:
“the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver”.
Paragraph 9(2)(e), 9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(e)(ii) sets out the following;
Paragraph 9(2)(e) requires that 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, to notify the creditor of the name and current service address of the driver and to pass the notice to the driver.
An examination of the operator’s NtK reveals that the statutory wording is not present.
I therefore ask the operator to specifically rebut this appeal point by supplying a copy of the relevant NtK, to the PoPLA Assessor, with an orange rectangle around the wording, "the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver" - for total clarity, please do not include any other notations on the provided NtK - just the orange rectangle.
APPEAL POINT TWO – That, subsequent to the statutory wording required by 9(2)(e), the operator’s NtK does not set out the mandatory two-limbed invitation to the keeper to either pay the unpaid
parking charges or nominate another driver.
An examination of the legislation surrounding 9(2)(e) reveals that compliance is achieved by the setting out of the statutory wording immediately followed by a two limbed 'invitation to the keeper' to either 'pay the unpaid parking charges' or 'nominate another driver'.
Once again here, Paragraph 9(2)(e) requires that 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, to notify the creditor of the name and current service address of the driver and to pass the notice to the driver.
An examination of the operator’s NtK reveals that the NtK fails to provide the required two-limbed invitation to the keeper.
Both above conditions must be satisfied in order for the operator to rely on PoFA and transfer liability from the driver to the keeper. Once again, I ask the operator to specifically rebut this appeal point by supplying a copy of the NtK which clearly sets out, in an orange rectangle, the two-limbed legal invitation which the legislation requires in order to be compliant.
APPEAL POINT THREE - That, in accordance with 9(2)(e) and subsequently 9(2)(e)(i), the NtK must 'invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges'.
An examination of the operators NtK reveals that there is no clear invitation to the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges, as specifically required by paragraph 9(2)(e)(i).
Once again, I ask the operator to prove that the NtK complies with this requirement - please demonstrate the 'invitation to the keeper to pay the unpaid charges'. Please note that terminology such as “notified” or “advised” is not equivalent to the statutory requirement of an “invitation to the keeper” under paragraph 9(2)(e). The wording used in the legislation is specific and must be properly reflected in the Notice to Keeper.
Please also note that, the parking operator is required to meet ‘all applicable conditions' under Schedule 4 in order to hold the keeper liable for the unpaid charges.
The operator’s references to keeper liability and paragraph 9(2)(f) do not remove the separate requirement to fully comply with paragraph 9(2)(e).
As the NtK does not comply with the mandatory requirements of PoFA, liability cannot be transferred from driver to keeper.
I therefore put the operator to strict proof of full PoFA compliance and ask the operator to specifically rebut these appeal points by identifying where the mandatory wording appears on the NtK.
APPEAL POINT FOUR – No evidence of the required period of actual parking.
The NtK relies solely on ANPR images showing entry and exit times. These do not establish the actual period of parking as required by PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(a).
ANPR captures vehicle movements entering and exiting the site, rather than the actual period during which the vehicle was parked.
APPEAL POINT FIVE – Failure to account for non-parking time / grace periods.
The recorded duration includes time spent:
• locating a parking space in a busy car park
• queuing to exit due to congestion, traffic lights and the one-way system
This is not parking time and should not form part of any alleged parking period. The recorded time includes time spent entering the site, locating a parking space, manoeuvring, and exiting the site, including delays caused by congestion and traffic lights immediately outside the car park exit on what was a particularly busy bank holiday period.
APPEAL POINT SIX – Inadequate signage
There is inadequate signage in the small bay area near the exit of the car park where no visible terms and conditions signage is present.
The terms and conditions were not adequately brought to the attention of drivers using this specific area of the car park and therefore no contract could have been formed.
APPEAL POINT SEVEN – No evidence of landowner authority
The operator is put to strict proof that it has the necessary landowner authority to issue and enforce parking charges at this site.
The operator is required to produce an unredacted contemporaneous contract showing authority to issue parking charges and pursue them to recovery.
In the absence of such evidence, the operator has failed to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. In light of all the above, I request that the charge be cancelled.
