Parking Charge Notice - NPE (Norfolk Parking Enforcement) - Won

[Rob1710]

[MENTION=5354]mystery1[/MENTION]
Hi, I was reading this thread and I appear to be in the same position as fandaz. I have received a PCN from the same row of shops. I have appealed using a template letter from our friend Martin Lewis which I adapted to suit the circumstances. It was rejected by NPE, no surprise there. I have received I popla code so I would like to know what the best thing to do is to increase the chances of winning at the popla appeals stage please? I've posted all the correspondence below. I have not included all the ref numbers and personal details as I'm sure this slime ball will be reading this.


I have yesterday received a PCN "final demand" from yourselves. Saying that "this PCN has not been paid and the opportunity to pay a discounted amount has been lost" I will categorically and honestly say that this is the first correspondence I have had on this matter. How can it be a "final demand"and how can I "have lost an opportunity to pay a discounted rate" if this is the first I have heard about the matter? I'm presuming there has been some sort of communication attempted prior to this one, in which I did not receive.

That being said, I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car, on these main grounds:

a). The sum is disproportionate, does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss, nor is it a core price term. Especially as at the time (9:58pm) this was "issued" the business in question was closed to customers.
b) The sum is extravagant and unconscionable and cannot be justified. As the ParkingEye v Beavis case is pending a hearing at the Supreme Court, your position is effectively likely to be stayed until 2016 if you try to pursue this matter so I invite you to cancel the PCN now.
c). There is no evidence that you have any proprietary interest in the land. I will complain to the landowner about your aggressive ticketing model.
d). Your 'Notice' fails to comply with the POFA 2012 and breaches various consumer contract/unfair terms Regulations.
e). As keeper I believe that the signs were not seen, at 9:58pm it was dark and there was no adequate lighting, the wording is ambiguous and the predominant purpose of your business model is to deter.

The purpose of this communication is:

1. Formal challenge
There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. As such, you must either rely on the POFA 2012 or cancel the charge. I suggest you uphold this challenge now or alternatively, send a rejection letter and I will only appeal further if you offer POPLA, which is the only ADR with a scrutiny panel where it is seen to be independent. Any other alternative will not be considered.

2. ''Drop hands'' offer
The extravagant 'parking charge' is baseless but I realise that you may have incurred nominal postage costs. Equally, I have incurred costs to date, for responding to your junk mail dressed up to impersonate a parking ticket. It is clear that my costs and yours, at this point, do not exceed £15. Therefore, this is a formal “drop hands”offer. I remind you of the duty to mitigate any loss, so withdraw the spurious charge within 35 days without further expense and I will not pursue you for my costs.

3. Notice of cancellation of contract
I hereby give notice of withdrawal from this alleged 'contract' which was never properly offered by you and certainly was not expressly agreed. This 'contract' is hereby cancelled and any obligations now end. The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation & Additional Payments) Regulations apply now to every consumer contract. You have failed to meet the statutory requirements for information served in advance by durable medium.

I have kept proof of submission of this challenge. I look forward to your considered reply within 35 days.

Yours faithfully



Thank you for your letter of appeal against the above parking charge notice issued to you on 18th April 2015 at 21.58pm for reason ‘Unauthorised Parking’ at ’Norwich In Car Entertainment, 47 Dereham Road, Norwich’.
Having carefully considered the evidence provided by you we have decided to reject your appeal for the following reasons:
1- The above location is private property and there are advertised terms and conditions which the driver is expected to abide by in order to obtain permission to park.
2- The signage clearly states that parking is not permitted for KFC or when the business is closed.
3- The spaces at this location are reserved when the business is closed for vehicles that have been authorised and added to our exempt list. As your vehicle is not on that list it was correctly issued a parking charge.
Registered office. The Studio, St. Nicholas Close, Elstree, Hertfordshire WD6 3EW Tel 0330 0080371 office address: PO Box 244, Wymondham, Norfolk, NR18 8BZ
email - office@parkingprotection.co.uk company registration no. 08031075
As confirmed by the recent dismissal of the ParkingEye v Beavis appeal, we submit that the
charge does not cause a significant imbalance of the parties' rights and obligations arising
under the Contract. The charge sought is a contractual term, which is within the
recommended British Parking Association (BPA) guidelines, and is compliant with paragraph
19.5 of the BPA code. Furthermore, the BPA has authorised us to charge at this level.
4-
5- As the ParkingEye v Beavis has been won at both County Court and Court of Appeal, we are happy to await the Supreme Court hearing outcome should POPLA stay your appeal.
6- The signage in this car park has been audited and approved by the British Parking Association.
7- Norfolk Parking Enforcement have a contract with the landowner giving us sole responsibility to issue parking charges to vehicles that have parked outside of the advertised terms and conditions and pursue payment for any unpaid charges in our name through court if necessary. Please do complain to them, we are sure they will be interested as to why you feel aggrieved for us managing their private parking spaces correctly by issuing charges to vehicles that have parked outside their terms and conditions.
www.parkingprotection.co.uk
You now have a number of options:
1- Pay the Parking Charge Notice at the prevailing price of £60.00 within 14 days. Please note
that after this time the Parking Charge Notice will rise to £100.00.
2- Make an appeal to POPLA – The Independent Appeals Service, within 28 days from date of
this letter. Please be advised that if you opt for independent arbitration of your case you will lose the right to the discounted rate of £60.00, and should POPLA’s decision not go in your favour, you will be required to pay the full amount of £100.00. If you opt to pay the reduced amount of £60.00 you will not be able to apply to POPLA. Appeals to POPLA can be made by post to: POPLA, PO Box 70748, London, EC1P 1SN, or by email to: www.popla.org.uk, quoting the verification number above. POPLA’s Enquiries telephone number is: 0845 207 7700.
3- If you choose to do nothing, we will seek to recover the monies owed to us via our debt recovery procedures and may proceed with court action against you.
Regards
NPE Appeals Dept

[MENTION=5354]mystery1[/MENTION]
My main issues are:
1it was 9:58pm in April and was dark, there are no lights to illuminate the signs.
2 due to the time of day the business in question is closed, how can £100 or even £60 be "proportionate or commercially justifiable" (I've been reading the bpa code of practice)
3. The signs are not clear unless you actually walk up to them and read them like a long winded novel. (But this guy says they have been "audited by the bpa")
4 even if the were lit up the signs are the same colour as the shops signage so therefore blend in with the scenery. Unless you know the are there they are so easy to miss.
5. 2 shops to the left of the shop in question they have installed removable barriers which are up at night to prevent people parking and down during the day to allow the customers to park. Why hasn't this shop done that? I know, because they want people to park there so they can cash in I bet.

Anyway your help in advising on what to write to popla would be appreciated on this matter. Thanks

Rob

[mystery1]

Re: Parking Charge Notice - NPE (Norfolk Parking Enforcement)

I will do it for you within a few days.

M1

[Rob1710]

Re: Parking Charge Notice - NPE (Norfolk Parking Enforcement)

That's great, thanks a lot, much appreciated.

[mystery1]

Re: Parking Charge Notice - NPE (Norfolk Parking Enforcement)

I wish to appeal this parking charge on the following grounds.

1. The charges are penalties and not a contractual charge, breach of contract or trespass. They are not a genuine pre estimate of loss either.

2. In order to form a contract the signs need to be clear so that they must be seen by an average person. They were not. There was no breach of contract.

3. NPE do not hold sufficient interest in the land to offer a motorist a contract to park. They have no locus standi.

4. NPE have failed to adhere to the BPA code of practice.

5. Unreliable, unsynchronised and non-compliant ANPR system.

6. Keeper liability.



1.The charges are penalties.

The charges are represented as UNAUTHORISED PARKING. It was dark and the unlit signs were not seen by the driver. There is free parking available so any charge is extravagant and unconscionable. According to the BPA code "If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a act of trespass, this charge must be proportionate and commercially justifiable. We would not expect this amount to be more than £100. If the charge is more than this, operators must be able to justify the amount in advance"

£100 is clearly not proportionate to a stay in a car park in which the vehicle was allowed to park for free. Neither is it commercially justified because it would make no sense and in any event in was only ruled so in Parking Eye v Beavis in a car park where the operator paid £1000 per week, a case which in any event is being appealed to the supreme court. It is also noted that the judge in Beavis did rule it was a penalty although in that particular car park it was commercially justified due to the £1000 per week paid by the operator. The longer a driver stays in the various shops then the more profit is made. £100 is clearly a penalty. The £100 is not a genuine pre estimate of loss and is extravagant and unconscionable. It is a penalty. It is not an attempt to claim liquidated damages which should be a genuine pre estimate of loss. £100 cannot be so as the figures quoted include business costs.

I require NPE to submit a full breakdown of how these losses are calculated in this particular car park and for this particular ‘contravention’. NPE cannot lawfully include their operational day to day running costs (e.g. provision of signs, ANPR and parking enforcement) in any ‘loss’ claimed. Not only are those costs tax deductible, but were no breaches to occur in that car park, the cost of parking 'enforcement ' would still remain the same.

According to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations, parking charges for breach on private land must not exceed the cost to the landowner during the time the motorist is parked there. As the landowner allows free parking for shoppers and several hundred pounds were spent then there is no loss. The Office of Fair Trading has stated that ''a ‘parking charge’ is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists.''

The charge is an unenforceable penalty.


2. Unclear and non-compliant signage, forming no contract with drivers.

I require signage evidence in the form of a site map and dated photos of the signs at the time of the parking event. It was dark and the signs were unlit so the driver could not see them. I would contend that the signs (wording, position and clarity) fail to properly inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach, as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011. As such, the signs were not so prominent that they 'must' have been seen by the driver - who would never have agreed to pay £100 in a carpark where they could have paid nothing. It was not a genuine attempt to contract for unlimited parking in return for £100.

As the PCN had no VAT content to it, it cannot be for a service. It must therefore be a penalty.


3. Contract with landowner - no locus standi

NPE do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question. As such, I do not believe that NPE Has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park, or indeed to allege a breach of contract. Accordingly, I require sight of a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed and dated site agreement/contract with the landowner (and not just a signed slip of paper saying that it exists). Some parking companies have provided “witness statements” instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. Nor would a witness statement show whether there is a payment made from either party within the agreement/contract which would affect any 'loss' calculations. Nor would it show whether the contract includes the necessary authority, required by the BPA CoP, to specifically allow NPE to pursue these charges in their own name as creditor in the Courts, and to grant them the standing/assignment of title to make contracts with drivers.

In POPLA case reference 1771073004, POPLA ruled that a witness statement was 'not valid evidence'. This witness statement concerned evidence which could have been produced but was not. So if the operator produces a witness statement mentioning the contract, but does not produce the actual un-redacted contract document, then POPLA should be consistent and rule any such statement invalid.

So I require the unredacted contract for all these stated reasons as I contend the Operator's authority is limited to that of a mere parking agent. I believe it is merely a standard business agreement between NPE and their client, which is true of any such business model. This cannot impact upon, nor create a contract with, any driver, as was found in case no. 3JD00517 ParkingEye v Clarke 19th December 2013 (Transcript linked): http://nebula.wsimg.com/0ce354ec6697...&alloworigin=1

I refer the Adjudicator to the recent Appeal Court decision in the case of Vehicle Control Services (VCS) v HMRC ( EWCA Civ 186 [2013]): The principal issue in this case was to determine the actual nature of Private Parking Charges.

It was stated that, "If those charges are consideration for a supply of goods or services, they will be subject to VAT. If, on the other hand, they are damages they will not be."

The ruling of the Court stated, "I would hold, therefore, that the monies that VCS collected from motorists by enforcement of parking charges were not consideration moving from the landowner in return for the supply of parking services."

In other words, they are not, as the Operator asserts, a contractual term. If they were a contractual term, the Operator would have to provide a VAT invoice, to provide a means of payment at the point of supply, and to account to HMRC for the VAT element of the charge. The Appellant asserts that these requirements have not been met. It must therefore be concluded that the Operator's charges are in fact damages, or penalties, for which the Operator must demonstrate his actual, or pre-estimated losses, as set out above.

4. Failure to adhere to the BPA code of practice.

The signs do not meet the minimum requirements in part 18. They were not clear and intelligible as required.

The BPA Code of Practice states under appendix B, entrance signage:

“The sign must be readable from far enough away so that drivers can take in all the essential text without needing to look more than 10 degrees away from the road ahead.”

For a contract to be formed, one of the many considerations is that there must be adequate signage on entering the car park and throughout the car park. I contend that there is not. Upon returning to the car park after receiving this unjustified 'charge notice' to check the alleged terms at a later date, I had to get out of my car to even read the larger font on the signs, and the smaller font was only readable when standing next to a sign. They were also very brightly coloured but too busy, confusing and unclear. They were also unlit making them redundant in the dark.

When with reference to the BCP Code of Practice, it actually states:

"There must be enough colour contrast between the text and its background, each of which should be a single solid colour. The best way to achieve this is to have black text on a white background, or white text on a black background. Combinations such as blue on yellow are not easy to read and may cause problems for drivers with impaired colour vision"


5. ANPR ACCURACY

This Operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. I require the Operator to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted,calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images.This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that this Operator must produce evidence in response to these points and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the Operator inParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence form the Operator was 'fundamentally flawed' as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.

So, in addition to showing their maintenance records, I require the Operator in this case to show evidence to rebut this point: I suggest that in the case of my vehicle being in this car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The operator appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live". Hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. Therefore I contend that this ANPR "evidence" from this Operator in this car park is just as unreliable as the ParkingEye system and I put this Operator to strict proof to the contrary.

6. Keeper liability.


The protection of freedoms act 2012 schedule 4 allows the opportunity for parking companies liable for the actions of the driver but only if full compliance is achieved. In the case of an ANPR situation compliance with section 9 is required.

Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle

4(1)The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.
(2)The right under this paragraph applies only if—
(a)the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met ....

6(1)The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)—

(b)has given a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 9.

9(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.
(2)The notice must—
(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;
(b)inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;
(c)describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the end of that period, the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable;
(d)specify the total amount of those parking charges that are unpaid, as at a time which is—
(i)specified in the notice; and
(ii)no later than the end of the day before the day on which the notice is either sent by post or, as the case may be, handed to or left at a current address for service for the keeper (see sub-paragraph (4));
(e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and 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;
(f)warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—
(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;
(g)inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available;
(h)identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made;
(i)specify the date on which the notice is sent (where it is sent by post) or given (in any other case).
(3)The notice must relate only to a single period of parking specified under sub-paragraph (2)(a) (but this does not prevent the giving of separate notices which each specify different parts of a single period of parking).
(4)The notice must be given by—
(a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or
(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.
(5)The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.
(6)A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.
(7)When the notice is given it must be accompanied by any evidence prescribed under paragraph 10.
(8)In sub-paragraph (2)(g) the reference to arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints includes—
(a)any procedures offered by the creditor for dealing informally with representations by the keeper about the notice or any matter contained in it; and
(b)any arrangements under which disputes or complaints (however described) may be referred by the keeper to independent adjudication or arbitration.


The notice to keeper does not specify a period of parking. The notice merely indicates a time of entry in to the car park and an exit time from the car park. The BPA code of practice makes reference to the fact that entry is not parking and dictates a grace period must be allowed partly for this very reason. As the keeper is not the person who was driving the keeper cannot know what the period of parking is and the legislation dictates it must be specified, presumably for that very reason. In Woodchester v Swayne & Co [1998] EWCA Civ 1209 (14 July 1998) it was held that the specified information required to be provided by legislation should indeed be accurate and that the failure made the relevant notice invalid. It was also the deciding factor in Parking Eye v Mrs X Case No: 3JD08399 IN THE ALTRINCHAM COUNTY COURT.
http://nebula.wsimg.com/c289944f81b4...&alloworigin=1


Sections C, D, E & F has not been complied with at all. Other sections are not totally complied with either. The keeper is not invited to pay.

There is no keeper liability and the appeal should be upheld.




M1

[Rob1710]

Re: Parking Charge Notice - NPE (Norfolk Parking Enforcement)

That's great, ill send that off to popla and let you know the outcome. Thanks again.

[Rob1710]

Re: Parking Charge Notice - NPE (Norfolk Parking Enforcement)

just had popla decision and was in my favour. He didn't even submit the parking charge notice or any evidence to show a breach in parking rules had been broken. Just goes to show what a cowboy this guy from NPE Norfolk parking enforcement is. No one should be paying this rogue at any cost. Thanks for your help.

[Ledonster]

Re: Parking Charge Notice - NPE (Norfolk Parking Enforcement)

I've just had my appeal to NPE rejected and received my POPLA code. In light of the recent supreme court judgement on the Beavis case, I am feeling a bit nervous about appealing to POPLA. Can this still be won? Correspondence attached. Any pointers would be very much appreciated.

MY APPEAL

Without prejudice, except as to costs

Parking Charge Notice - Notice to Keeper

This letter is a formal challenge to the issue of your Parking Charge Notice - Notice to Keeper as set out in the current BPA Ltd AOS Code of Practice B.22

On xxxx I was the registered keeper of a xxxx registration number xxxxx
Before I decide how to deal with your Parking Charge Notice - Notice to Keeper, I should be grateful if you would first answer all the questions and deal with all the issues I have set out below. Once you have done so, I will be able to make an informed decision on how I deal with the matter.

I should be grateful for specific answers to all questions raised. In this respect I remind you of the obligations set out in the current Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct.

I dispute your claim for the reasons set out below. Please note that although I dispute the whole basis of the parking charge, my main concern is its disproportionate and punitive level.

1. Your parking charge amount claim.

Please explain on which of the following grounds your claim is based:

(i) Damages for trespass
(ii) Damages for breach of contract
(iii) A contractual sum
2. Your loss.

If it is your case that that a trespass was committed or that a contract was breached such that your claim is one for damages; please give me a full breakdown of the actual losses which evidences that this parking charge is a true reflection of the damages caused solely by the alleged parking contravention.


3. Your status – the creditor.

Your Parking Charge Notice - Notice to Keeper simply mentions Norfolk parking Enforcement Ltd. Please tell me who is the actual creditor making this £60 parking charge demand. I need to know exactly who is making the claim and in what capacity.

4. Ownership of premises.

Please tell me who owns the car park as I wish to send them a copy of this letter.
5. Contractual Authority (as required by BPA Ltd AOS CoP B.7)

Please provide me with a copy of the contract between your company and the landowner/landholder that provides the necessary contractual written authority for the issue and enforcement of your Parking Charge Notice - Notice to Keeper.

6. Signage.

If it is your case that a contract has been breached or that a contractual sum is now due, please send me photographs of the signs that you display and upon which you seek to evidence that a lawful and legally enforceable contract was been entered into. Please ensure that the photographs show the terms and conditions in a clear and legible manner. Please provide me with a diagram showing the locations and layout of those signs at the car park. Also provide evidence that the wording is in plain and intelligible language and in sufficiently large print as to be legible to a driver at the car park’s entry point.

7. Summary
I look forward to receiving your acknowledgement within 14 days and as there are no ‘exceptional circumstances’ your comprehensive reply within 35 days (in accordance with the BPA AOS Code of Practice B.22.8). I will then be able to make an informed decision as to how I deal with your Parking Charge Notice – Notice to Keeper.
If you reject this challenge or fail to address the issues that have been raised then, in accordance with the BPA AOS Code of Practice 22.12, please ensure that you enclose all the required information (including the necessary ‘POPLA code’) so that I may immediately refer the matter for their decision.
If you fail to follow any of the procedures outlined in the BPA AOS Code of Practice or your legal requirements under the Protection of Freedoms Act, or the requirements of the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct then I will make a formal complaint to the DVLA Data Sharing Policy Group, D16.
Please Note: Unless you have specifically requested it and received my express permission, you do not have my authority to disclose or refer this letter or any other communication from me to any other person or organisation.

Yours faithfully,
__________________________________________________ ________________________


THEIR REPLY:

Thank you for your letter of appeal against the above parking charge notice issued to you on xx at xxx for reason ‘Unauthorised Parking’ at ‘xx Dereham Road, Norwich’.

Having carefully considered the evidence provided by you we have decided to reject your appeal for

the following reasons:

1- The above location is private property and there are advertised terms and conditions which

the driver is expected to abide by in order to obtain permission to park.

2- The signage clearly states that parking is not permitted for KFC or when the business is

closed.

3- The spaces at this location are reserved when the business is closed for vehicles that have

been authorised and added to our exempt list. As your vehicle is not on that list it was

correctly issued a parking charge.
Supreme Court of the United Kingdom – landmark court decision:- On 4

landmark judgement was handed down in favour of a parking operator who took a motorist

to court for non-payment of a typical parking charge. Further details on the case can be

found here – https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0116.html. This case was

seen as an important ‘test case’ due to the complex legal arguments used by both sides. The

ruling sets a legally binding precedent on all similar cases for the whole United Kingdom.

You now have a number of options:

1- Pay the Parking Charge Notice at the prevailing price of £60.00 within 14 days. Please note

that after this time the Parking Charge Notice will rise to £100.00.

2- Make an appeal to POPLA – The Independent Appeals Service, within 28 days from date of

this letter. Please be advised that if you opt for independent arbitration of your case you

will lose the right to the discounted rate of £60.00, and should POPLA’s decision not go in your favour, you will be required to pay the full amount of £100.00. If you opt to pay the

reduced amount of £60.00 you will not be able to apply to POPLA. Appeals to POPLA can be

made by post to: POPLA, PO Box 70748, London, EC1P 1SN, or by email to:

www.popla.org.uk, quoting the verification number above. POPLA’s Enquiries telephone

number is: 0845 207 7700.

3- If you choose to do nothing, we will seek to recover the monies owed to us via our debt

recovery procedures and may proceed with court action against you.

4- ADR:- By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services

(www.ombudsman-services.org/) provides an alternative dispute resolution service that

would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not chosen to participate

in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such should you wish to appeal then you

must do so to POPLA, as explained above.

[Rob1710]

Re: Parking Charge Notice - NPE (Norfolk Parking Enforcement) - Won

APPEAL TO POPLA!!!!!! The guy is a crook. Read the whole of this thread and copy and paste the cover letter that was sent to me. This NPE guy is a blagger. When I appealed to POPLA he didn't even bother to submit any evidence. He plays a numbers game. Don't not pay!!! Even if you lose the POPLA appeal (which you won't) still don't pay. He can't do anything. Too many people are paying this cowboy and he's loving it. Don't be one of those people that rolls over and takes it.

[mystery1]

Re: Parking Charge Notice - NPE (Norfolk Parking Enforcement) - Won

INdeed, it is very likely they messed up keeper liability so you should win.


M1

[Ledonster]

Re: Parking Charge Notice - NPE (Norfolk Parking Enforcement) - Won

Thanks M1

Reading your message has reassured me massively. I will repurpose the appeal that you kindly drafted for Rob1710

Regards

INdeed, it is very likely they messed up keeper liability so you should win.


M1

[Rob1710]

Re: Parking Charge Notice - NPE (Norfolk Parking Enforcement) - Won

Nice one. I can't stress enough how much power this guy doesn't have! Too many people just pay him, that's how he makes his money. If you appeal all the way then he gives up. To be honest, after all the research I did when I got a ticket from him, I regretted replying to him at all. I should've just ignored all correspondence until he went away. He's got no authority. I will next time 😉

[Ledonster]

Re: Parking Charge Notice - NPE (Norfolk Parking Enforcement) - Won

My POPLA appeal was sent last night. Wasn't sure what category to use so went with 'other'. I used the appeal produced my mystery1. Fingers crossed. Thanks for all your help. I will pay it forward by helping a friend who has fallen foul of the NPE trap at the heartsease pub/ aldi supermarket in Norwich.

:0)

[Rob1710]

Re: Parking Charge Notice - NPE (Norfolk Parking Enforcement) - Won

Ok great. Has your friend responded to any NPE correspodendce at all? If not I would recommend ignoring EVERYTHING he sends from now on. He will eventually go away. Don't not pay him ever!!!! He may threaten and bully but he is toothless and he will not follow up his actions. If he has responded to the first letter then just go down the POPLA route. Be strong, don't give in!!