Hi, thank you for that. Would the following be ok?
POPLA Appeal: Parking Charge Notice Reference [redacted]
Appellant: [redacted] (Registered Keeper)
Date of Issue: 06/06/2024
Grounds for Appeal:
1. Failure to Adhere to the Requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
According to Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(4)(b) of PoFA 2012, the Notice to Keeper (NtK) must be delivered to the registered keeper within 14 days of the alleged parking contravention if no Notice to Driver (NtD) was issued. In this case, the alleged parking incident occurred on 26/05/2024, and the NtK was deemed delivered on 10/06/2024, which is 15 days later. This exceeds the statutory 14-day period, rendering the NtK invalid and eliminating keeper liability. Group Nexus has ignored this crucial point, thereby failing to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper.
Legislative Reference:
PoFA 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(4)(b): “The notice must be given by... sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.”
2. The Operator Has Not Shown That the Individual Who It Is Pursuing Is in Fact the Driver Who May Have Been Potentially Liable for the Charge
As the registered keeper, I have no obligation to identify the driver, and the operator has not provided any evidence that the person to whom the PCN was issued was the driver at the time of the alleged incident. Without such evidence, the operator cannot transfer liability to the keeper.
3. Inadequate Signage Leading to Failure to Adhere to PoFA 2012 and Breach of the BPA Code of Practice
The signage at the location in question is insufficient, unclear, and not compliant with the standards set out in the BPA Code of Practice. Adequate signage is a mandatory requirement for compliance with PoFA 2012, and the operator has failed to ensure that the signage meets these requirements. This lack of clear and conspicuous signage means that drivers are not properly informed of the parking terms and conditions, thus invalidating any alleged contract formed.
4. No Evidence of Landholder Authority
Group Nexus has not provided any evidence that they have the authority from the landowner to issue and enforce parking charge notices on the land in question. In order to have the right to form contracts with drivers and to pursue charges to POPLA, Group Nexus must produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. Without this, the operator has no legal standing to enforce the charge.
5. Failure to Comply with the BPA Code of Practice General Principles for ANPR
The operator uses ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) technology to issue PCNs. The BPA Code of Practice requires that the use of ANPR technology is fully compliant with the BPA's guidelines and that it ensures accurate and fair enforcement. The operator has not provided evidence that the ANPR system is maintained and operated correctly. This includes ensuring the data collected is accurate and fairly processed, which is fundamental to justifying the PCN issued.
6. Misleading and Predatory Tactics
The BPA Code of Practice prohibits operators from using predatory tactics to issue PCNs. The unclear and insufficient signage, coupled with the use of ANPR technology without proper notification, constitutes misleading and predatory behaviour aimed at ensnaring unsuspecting drivers.
Legislative Reference:
BPA Code of Practice, Section 14: This section prohibits the use of predatory tactics and requires transparency in enforcement practices.
7. Failure to Respond to Appeal Points
In their rejection letter, Group Nexus did not address the specific points raised in my initial appeal, particularly the failure to comply with PoFA 2012 requirements. This demonstrates a lack of proper consideration and due process in handling appeals, as required by both PoFA and the BPA Code of Practice.
Legislative Reference:
BPA Code of Practice, Section 22: This section requires operators to respond to all points raised in an appeal comprehensively and fairly.
Conclusion
Given the multiple failures by Group Nexus to adhere to statutory requirements and BPA guidelines, the Parking Charge Notice issued is invalid. I request POPLA to consider the clear breaches outlined above and cancel the Parking Charge Notice accordingly.
Yours faithfully,
Not unexpected. You are dealing with intellectually malnourished scammers. They have completely ignored the fact that their NtK failed to fully comply with the requirements of PoFA and so the keeper cannot e liable for the PCN.
The POPLA code is actually valid for 33 days from the date of the appeal rejection, not the stated 28 days. However, there is no other advantage to delaying the POPLA appeal but you do have a bit more time to prepare it and show us for critique before sending it.
You should appeal as the keeper and list all the points you wil be appealing on and the expand on each point individually. The primary point should be that the operator has failed to fully comply with all the requirements of PoFA to be able to hold the keeper liable. The second point would be that the operator has not provided any evidence that the person the PCN was issued to was the driver.
The points will be, but not limited to,
(1) Failure to adhere to the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
(2) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge
(3) Inadequate signage leading to failure to adhere to PoFA 2012 and breach of the BPA Code of Practice
(4) No evidence of landholder authority
(5) Failure to comply with the BPA CoP General Principles for ANPR
