Minster Baywatch PCN

[222helen]

A good place to start is the Popla page: https://appealform.popla.co.uk/#/StartAppeal/Index

Do not identify the driver, and besides including the points already mentioned include anything else you can think of.
Your appeal basically is that their failure to comply exactly with the Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012 means they cannot pass liability on to the registered keeper

Good luck

Thank you

[222helen]

I heard back from POPLA saying MB has given their response to my appeal using POFA 2012

You have failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012, namely,

1) You do not state the period of parking as required by PoFA Sch 4 9 (2) (a)
2)Keeper has not been invited to pay the outstanding charges as required by PoFA Sch 9 (2) (e) i




This is the text from MB

1. Denied. As can be seen on the original Notice to Keeper sent out there are clearly stated entrance and exit times as follows: Entrance Date/Time: 18/09/2022 at 09:38:47 and Exit Date/Time: 18/09/2022 at 10:55:14 bringing the total stay to 1 hour, 16 minutes and 27 seconds.

2. Denied. As stated on the original Notice to Keeper: "You are notified under The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, that you are now required to do one of the following: pay the outstanding amount if you were the driver of the vehicle; if you were not the driver, provide us with the full name of the driver of the vehicle along with their current address where a notice can be served — you should also pass this notice to the driver." Furthermore this notice also states : "You are warned that if, after 29 days from the date given (which is presumed to be the second working day after the Date Issued), the Parking Charge has not been paid in full and Minster Baywatch Ltd (the creditor) does not know both the name and current address for service for the driver, we have a right to recover any unpaid part of the Parking Charge from you as the registered keeper of the vehicle."

3. Denied. Schedule 4 of POFA section 9 subparagraph (4) "the notice must be given by" (b) "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 " and subparagraph (5) relevant period is a the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended, which Minster Baywatch has met. The appellant has failed to provide the details of the driver in the timeframes set out on the Notice to Keeper and is therefore liable for this charge. POPLA has been provided a copy of our daily entry log for this site. No entry is similar to the VRM of the vehicle. The site consideration period is 10 minutes For the above reasons the PCN was correctly issued, and the appeal correctly declined. POPLA is referred to the rest of our evidence bundle.

I now have seven days to add my reply to the above and would welcome any advice on what to write.

[des8]

All you can do is reiterate the points you have made and lead POPLA by the hand.

I would just remind them that to transfer liability fro m the driver to the keeper of the vehicle POFA schedule 4 sec 9 (20) states the Notice to keeper MUST;

(a)..... specify the period of parking to which the notice relates
Cameras recording time of entry and departure do not record the period of parking as they do not take into account the time spent findingt a parking space or leaving the site.
The NTK did not specify a period, it only gave entry and exit times

(e)....INVITE the keeper
(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or
(ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;

Their NTK states the keeper is REQUIRED to.....
Requirement is not the same as invitation so the wording does not comply with POFA 2015

These are failures to comply with the strict wording of the Act and so the claimant fails to transfer liability from driver to keeper


Good luck, it is all a bit of a lottery

[222helen]

All you can do is reiterate the points you have made and lead POPLA by the hand.

I would just remind them that to transfer liability fro m the driver to the keeper of the vehicle POFA schedule 4 sec 9 (20) states the Notice to keeper MUST;

(a)..... specify the period of parking to which the notice relates
Cameras recording time of entry and departure do not record the period of parking as they do not take into account the time spent findingt a parking space or leaving the site.
The NTK did not specify a period, it only gave entry and exit times

(e)....INVITE the keeper
(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or
(ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;

Their NTK states the keeper is REQUIRED to.....
Requirement is not the same as invitation so the wording does not comply with POFA 2015

These are failures to comply with the strict wording of the Act and so the claimant fails to transfer liability from driver to keeper


Good luck, it is all a bit of a lottery

It certainly turned out to be a lottery, and we have learned that POPLA are a complete waste of time. The assessor sent a parroted reply and totally ignored the points we raised. We had some bad news shortly after this event; cancer has struck and because it coincided with Covid, it didn't get diagnosed immediately. The chemo is awful and it adds to the stress; I think my other half will pay the charge and try to forget the whole sorry saga.

Thank you so much to everyone who tried to help. I am sorry if I was scatter brained at times, this is not something I am familiar with.

Health and happiness to all of you.

Helen

[des8]

Sometimes life takes over and it becomes less stressful to roll over

Trust the chemo works and good health returns

[222helen]

UPDATE:

The chemo didn't work; it made life unbearable and, if anything, shortened life! Four months after the passing, we are trying to do our best.

The signage is now more ambiguous than ever at the offending site, and their funds are dwindling. We had an approach from a representative asking for extra funds as they are struggling to manage. We raised the parking subject, and they buried their heads in the sand, claiming it was better now. It seems they will never learn.

[des8]

Condolences on your loss and sorry to hear the treatment was unsuccessful.

Thank you for the update