Tweet
Re: MET parking ticket - won
Complaint.
Dear Popla & IPSA,
I wish to raise a complaint in the way my popla appeal reference xxxxxxx has been handled.
I was initially informed that my appeal was successful.
Decision
Successful
Assessor Name
Linsdey Rogers
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator states that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the basis that the appellant remained at the car park for longer that the stay was authorised.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant raises several grounds of appeal including keeper liability.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that the appellant has been identified as the driver of the vehicle in question at the time of the contravention. The operator is therefore pursuing the appellant as the registered keeper of the vehicle in this instance. For the operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle, to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012) must be adhered to. The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. As the driver of the vehicles has not been identified, the notice to keeper will need to comply with section 9 of PoFA 2012. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am not satisfied that it is compliant. Section 9 (f) of PoFA it states “warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given. From the evidence provided to me the PCN reads “Payment to be made within 28 days of issue.” As such, I can only conclude that the operator has not adhered to the PoFA guidelines and issued the PCN incorrectly.
I have bolded and underlined the section i have for reasons you will soon see.
I then received the following,
Dear XXXXXXXXXX
Thank you for contacting POPLA.
I am sorry that your case had to be reviewed after a decision was made. This was due to some of the operator’s evidence being overlooked at the assessment stage.
The assessment has been completed again taking the operators full evidence into consideration.
I am sorry that this has changed the outcome of the decision, however this decision is not final and there is no opportunity to appeal.
Yours sincerely
Lauren Bailey
POPLA Assessor
Again i have bolded and underlined some text.
The revised decision was,
I can't copy and paste that and i ain't fecking typing it out
Bold and underline the bit "I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and i am satisfied that it is compliant"
As you can see the notice to keeper was found to be flawed after being looked at. It was not overlooked as claimed in the email announcing the review and there is absolutely no reason given for the change.
I would also highlight the popla response http://legalbeagles.info/forums/show...723#post628723 to someone else,
Dear Sophie Abrahamovitch
Thank you for contacting POPLA.
We note you are unhappy with our decision. However, we have now reached the end of our process and there is no opportunity to appeal.
I have reviewed the case file, and I am satisfied that the evidence we were supplied with by both you and the operator has been reviewed in full, and that the decision has therfore been arrived at correctly.
Yours sincerely,
Siobhan Gooley
POPLA Team
This raises the question of how this "review" took place in my case. Is there an appeal available to operators that is not available to the motorist ?
The review is not available to motorists and even so was ill conceived and appears to be for a spurious and untrue reason.
I would like an immediate review in to the bizarre circumstances to help me understand how the above came to be.
Yours etc
complaints@popla.co.uk & director@ispa.co.uk cc aos@britishparking.co.uk , foi@dvla.gsi.gov.uk
M1
Complaint.
Dear Popla & IPSA,
I wish to raise a complaint in the way my popla appeal reference xxxxxxx has been handled.
I was initially informed that my appeal was successful.
Decision
Successful
Assessor Name
Linsdey Rogers
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator states that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the basis that the appellant remained at the car park for longer that the stay was authorised.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant raises several grounds of appeal including keeper liability.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that the appellant has been identified as the driver of the vehicle in question at the time of the contravention. The operator is therefore pursuing the appellant as the registered keeper of the vehicle in this instance. For the operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle, to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012) must be adhered to. The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. As the driver of the vehicles has not been identified, the notice to keeper will need to comply with section 9 of PoFA 2012. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am not satisfied that it is compliant. Section 9 (f) of PoFA it states “warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given. From the evidence provided to me the PCN reads “Payment to be made within 28 days of issue.” As such, I can only conclude that the operator has not adhered to the PoFA guidelines and issued the PCN incorrectly.
I have bolded and underlined the section i have for reasons you will soon see.
I then received the following,
Dear XXXXXXXXXX
Thank you for contacting POPLA.
I am sorry that your case had to be reviewed after a decision was made. This was due to some of the operator’s evidence being overlooked at the assessment stage.
The assessment has been completed again taking the operators full evidence into consideration.
I am sorry that this has changed the outcome of the decision, however this decision is not final and there is no opportunity to appeal.
Yours sincerely
Lauren Bailey
POPLA Assessor
Again i have bolded and underlined some text.
The revised decision was,
I can't copy and paste that and i ain't fecking typing it out
Bold and underline the bit "I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and i am satisfied that it is compliant"As you can see the notice to keeper was found to be flawed after being looked at. It was not overlooked as claimed in the email announcing the review and there is absolutely no reason given for the change.
I would also highlight the popla response http://legalbeagles.info/forums/show...723#post628723 to someone else,
Dear Sophie Abrahamovitch
Thank you for contacting POPLA.
We note you are unhappy with our decision. However, we have now reached the end of our process and there is no opportunity to appeal.
I have reviewed the case file, and I am satisfied that the evidence we were supplied with by both you and the operator has been reviewed in full, and that the decision has therfore been arrived at correctly.
Yours sincerely,
Siobhan Gooley
POPLA Team
This raises the question of how this "review" took place in my case. Is there an appeal available to operators that is not available to the motorist ?
The review is not available to motorists and even so was ill conceived and appears to be for a spurious and untrue reason.
I would like an immediate review in to the bizarre circumstances to help me understand how the above came to be.
Yours etc
complaints@popla.co.uk & director@ispa.co.uk cc aos@britishparking.co.uk , foi@dvla.gsi.gov.uk
M1
Comment