As far as I remember, you cannot upload documents when responding to the operators evidence. Also there is a 10,000 character limit to any response.
When you submitted the POPLA appeal, did you include photos or images of the NtD and anything else you are relying on? If so, you must explain clearly for the assessor to be able to compare what the operator has provided as evidence and what you provided. Be descriptive.
Are there any of your appeal points that the operator has not rebutted or ignored? You must point out any points you argued that have not been answered satisfactorily by the operator.
The burden of proof is on the operator to evidence their allegations. However, if they have not responded to any of your points, it should be a win for you.
For example, if you argued that the NtD was invalid as it did not contain all the relevant data and certainly was not capable of being fully compliant with PoFA but they have countered that it was and provided a photo of the NtD without the flaws, then you could point the assessor to this as follows:
POPLA Reference: [Your POPLA Number]
Euro Car Parks (ECP) PCN: [PCN Number]
I am writing to respond to the evidence pack submitted by Euro Car Parks (ECP) regarding my appeal. While I respect the importance of presenting clear and accurate evidence in a POPLA appeal, it is deeply concerning that ECP has submitted a falsified and inaccurate version of the Notice to Driver (NtD). The version presented in their evidence pack does not match the NtD that was affixed to the vehicle, and it is clearly a stock image or facsimile designed to misrepresent what actually occurred. I would like to bring to the POPLA assessor's attention the following points:
Fabricated Notice to Driver (NtD):
The NtD attached to the vehicle was severely truncated due to a machine printing error, cutting off crucial information such as the PCN number and parking details. This made it impossible to initiate an appeal at the time. In contrast, the version provided by ECP in their evidence pack is a complete, unaltered document with all information present, including different word placements and text wrapping compared to the original.
ECP’s version of the NtD bears no resemblance to the original, as shown by the altered formatting and content placement. This should be seen for what it is — a stock image that has been submitted in an attempt to mislead the POPLA process.
The copy of the NtD I provided in my initial appeal clearly shows the printing error and I urge the POPLA assessor to compare the two versions. The discrepancies between them are not minor; they are fundamental. The operator has knowingly submitted a doctored NtD that misrepresents the actual document left on the vehicle.
Impact on My Ability to Appeal as the Keeper:
Due to the printing error on the original NtD, I was unable to provide the PCN number required to appeal through the operator’s website. As a result, I had no recourse until the Notice to Keeper (NtK) was issued. ECP’s own system relies on the PCN number, yet they failed to ensure this number was visible on the NtD left on the vehicle. This further demonstrates their negligence in complying with the process they expect an appellant to follow.
Inaccurate Reliance on PoFA:
It is laughable that ECP attempts to rely on PoFA for holding the keeper liable while simultaneously submitting an invalid and non-compliant NtD. PoFA requires that the NtD includes specific, unambiguous information, none of which was properly conveyed on the version affixed to the vehicle due to the already mentioned printing issues.
ECP's own admission in their evidence pack that they must fully comply with PoFA only reinforces the fact that they have failed to do so. They cannot hold me, as the registered keeper, liable under PoFA because the NtD they issued was defective and did not meet the requirements outlined in Schedule 4.
Misleading Representation of Contractual Breach:
ECP's photos, which purport to show a breach of contract by parking "outside a marked bay," are equally flawed. As I outlined in my initial appeal, the vehicle was parked in what appeared to be a bay, with no markings or signage to indicate otherwise. The operator’s failure to properly mark the bays or provide adequate signage to indicate that the space was not a valid bay further undermines their claim.
Operator’s Conduct:
The submission of an inaccurate and misleading NtD is not only a breach of transparency but also reflects poorly on the operator’s integrity in this case. I submit that POPLA should take this into account when considering the overall fairness and conduct of the operator. The fact that ECP cannot even provide an accurate copy of the original NtD suggests they are attempting to deceive both myself and POPLA in this matter.
Request for Fairness in Adjudication:
I request that POPLA dismiss the operator's reliance on their fabricated NtD and acknowledge that ECP has not acted in good faith by submitting false evidence. Furthermore, ECP has failed to meet the necessary legal requirements under PoFA, both in the NtD and NtK, and should not be allowed to pursue this parking charge any further.
