Free Traffic Legal Advice

Ok great, thanks again!

On review of this thread, the back of the NtK you showed us is a cause for concern. Can you 100% confirm that that is the back of the original NtK or is it the back of the reminder NtK that you received.

This is crucial information and you need to double check as whatever in on the back of the reminder is totally irrelevant. So, go double check and confirm whether my suspicion is correct and you showed us the back of the reminder and not the original NtK.

Hi,

The back of the NTK is the original. I haven't had any reminders.

Thanks

Ok, I understand a bit more now and I will wait a few days to see if anybody can assist further as you suggest.

Thanks once again for your advice.

Hi,

I searched this forum and used what I thought was a similar scenario to mine to copy and paste into my POPLA appeal. I have received a response from POPLA saying I have 7 days to respond to PARKING EYE's evidence. Their evidence is quite a in depth and 2 documents worth and I now feel less confident but I am willing to fight on regardless. I think everything regarding the POPLA appeal that I have sent in is in the longer document so you can see what I have responded with.

Can anybody please advise as to a possible response to PARKING EYE's evidence?

Have you submitted anything to POPLA yet? I am wondering how come you have received an operators evidence pack. this is only received after a POPLA appeal has been submitted.

Their evidence is quite a in depth and 2 documents worth and I now feel less confident but I am willing to fight on regardless..

Of course it's lengthy!

They have to show that they're entitled to manage the site on behalf of the landowner, that they may raise parking charges in their own name and pursue the same, that the Ts and Cs are made clear in accordance with BPA and legal requirements and that these were breached by the DRIVER of VRM ABC123.

All pretty standard stuff.

But this isn't the point.

They have to prove that you're involved and may be pursued as registered keeper, or hirer or driver.

As RK - to do which the PCN must comply with para. 4 of the Schedule to PoFA. But it doesn't.

As hirer - to do which they have to prove that the registered keeper has relieved themselves of liability under paras. 4(7) and that they have issued a Notice to Hirer in conformity with para. 14. But they haven't.

Driver - they have no proof, only perhaps supposition and wishful thinking. 

crossed with b789...but where's their evidence pack?

Their evidence is quite a in depth and 2 documents worth and I now feel less confident but I am willing to fight on regardless..

Of course it's lengthy!

They have to show that they're entitled to manage the site on behalf of the landowner, that they may raise parking charges in their own name and pursue the same, that the Ts and Cs are made clear in accordance with BPA and legal requirements and that these were breached by the DRIVER of VRM ABC123.

All pretty standard stuff.

But this isn't the point.

They have to prove that you're involved and may be pursued as registered keeper, or hirer or driver.

As RK - to do which the PCN must comply with para. 4 of the Schedule to PoFA. But it doesn't.

As hirer - to do which they have to prove that the registered keeper has relieved themselves of liability under paras. 4(7) and that they have issued a Notice to Hirer in conformity with para. 14. But they haven't.

Driver - they have no proof, only perhaps supposition and wishful thinking. 

crossed with b789...but where's their evidence pack?

Thanks for your response. Can I use what you say as my response then?