Free Traffic Legal Advice

Thank you for your contact.

We are sorry that you are unhappy with our service and would like to reassure you that we take all complaints seriously.

The information has been escalated to our complaints team and the details will be reviewed.

You should receive a response within 21 days depending on the complexity of the information provided.

Clearly, the crux of your complaint is that you are unhappy with the outcome reached in the assessment of your appeal. You say the assessor has omitted elements of the required  mandatory wording of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. You raised that the operator’s PCN was not compliant and there was the omission of the subsequent two limbed legal choice required under Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 (2) (e). You say if the notice is examined it will be noticed that this was never presented. You say the assessor makes a procedural error as her wording referenced is that as discussed in 9 (2) (f) and not (e).
 
I have looked at the PCN following your complaint. I can see that you raised:
 
 
 
PoFA 2012 in e and f states:
 
 (Quote of (e) and (F) from the ACT inserted here)
 
 I have highlighted the pertinent section of the PCN which discusses PoFA 2012 requirements.
 
•   Green relates to 9 2 (e)
•   Blue relates to 9 2 (f)
 
BLUE:
You are advised that if after the period of 28 days beginning the day after that on which the notice is given (which os presumed to be the second working day after the Date issued) the parkign charge has not been paid in full and we do not know both the name and address of the driver, we have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from you.....

GREEN:
...applicable cobnditions under Schedule 4 of the Act. If you do not provide the correct address for service of the driver, pass the notice on to the driver, we will pursue you for any parking Charge amount that remains outstanding. Should you identify someone who denies they were the driver, we will pursue you for any Parking Charge amount that remains outstanding.

  The assessor stated:
 
“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. Parking operators have to follow certain rules including warning the registered keeper that they will be liable if the parking operator is not provided with the name and address of the driver.
 
In this case, the PCN in question has the necessary information and the parking operator has therefore successfully transferred the liability onto the registered keeper.
 
The appellant says that the Notice to Keeper is not compliant with PoFA 2012 as it omits the mandatory invitation to the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges. However, the Notice to Keeper makes it clear that the keeper may be pursued for any parking charge amount that remains unpaid and failure to make payment may result in additional costs.”
 
I am satisfied that the assessor is correct. Whilst the assessor has not touched upon the relevant sections, I am satisfied that it met the mandatory requirements of PoFA 2012 and therefore, the registered keeper can be held liable for the PCN.
 
Having reviewed both the appeal and your complaint, I am satisfied the decision reached is appropriate based on the evidence presented.

Jumping in on this, the pcn "does not contain the mandatory wording", mandatory is mandatory. It seems like theyve closed ranks. The assesor was wrong and so is the complaints assesor. You simply cannot interpret the act to suit yourself. As it stands, the complaint was never going to overturn the original judgement anyway, Im interested to see if ECP and their cronies attempt to test this nonsense in court, now theyve seen this and now think theyve got some kind of 'justification to proceed'.

Jumping in on this, the pcn "does not contain the mandatory wording", mandatory is mandatory. It seems like theyve closed ranks. The assesor was wrong and so is the complaints assesor. You simply cannot interpret the act to suit yourself. As it stands, the complaint was never going to overturn the original judgement anyway, Im interested to see if ECP and their cronies attempt to test this nonsense in court, now theyve seen this and now think theyve got some kind of 'justification to proceed'.

You are 100% correct.

But this is what you often find with POPLA.

You can present the strongest evidence but the assessor's seem to decide, in advance, if an appeal is going to be successful.

In this instance, as you point out, this is a really clear one but look at the lengths that two Assessors have gone to in order to try and persuade the appellant that the notice is compliant.

Generally the behaviour is always the same - if you present a difficult appeal point the assessor will either;

1) Rebut the point outright but avoid all clarity on how the decision was reached - clarity is the assessors enemy where appeal points are strong - clarity is therefore avoided at all costs since clarity will only ever favour the appellant and that is what the assessor is trying to avoid.

2) Ignore the appeal point totally when rebuttal is impossible - carefully skip over the point and move to the next point.

3) Materially alter the basis of an appellants appeal point in order to make the appeal point fit with available rebuttal evidence.

4) Exclude appellant evidence when that evidence disqualifies the assessors proposed outcome.


In this case both assessors have fumbled in order to try and provide rebuttal evidence.

In each instance the two assessors have provided differing evidence in their rebuttal.

In this case the second assessor has (inadvertently) acknowledged that the first assessor provided invalid rebuttal evidence.

The second assessor then attempts to 'force fit' the wording of a different term into the mandatory requirements of 9(2)(e) - it is clear as day that his proposed compliance is totally irrelevant to 9(2)(e).

The assessor then tip-toes around the precise requirements because any further comments would start to provide the dreaded 'clarity' at a time when the assessor is desperately trying to avoid any clarity.

Yes - please send.

The Assessor sets out the legislation and then provides no evidence that the legislation has been satisfied.

The Assessor is BS-ing and everyone knows it including him / her.